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

[LBS] minutes - 3 June 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:12:02 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9W9v6pFZJxm66C_5dRSCudVXc=BgjP8Q7eJgPWciXN0Rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-autowebplatform@w3.org" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>
available at:

also as text below.

I'm sending these minutes to the BG public list based on the
agreement of both Qing An and Philippe Colliot :)




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

                               - DRAFT -

                                 LBS TF

03 Jun 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-auto-irc


          Qing_An, Philippe_Colliot, Kaz_Ashimura

          Philippe, QingAn



     * [3]Topics
     * [4]Summary of Action Items
     * [5]Summary of Resolutions

   <QingAn> [6]VSS

      [6] https://github.com/GENIVI/vehicle_signal_specification

   qa: : which direction should be taken?

   pc: api accesses the data
   ... launching guidance is different
   ... there are a lot of methods
   ... including get/set methods

   qa: what is the relationship between vehicle data and vss

   ka: should be done by the data comparison tf
   ... we need to think about use cases of LBS/Navigation
   ... also some architecture model
   ... and in parallel we need to see the data format

   pc: have started some work on use cases
   ... comparison between W3C use cases and Genivi use cases
   ... W3C data spec includes JS properties
   ... while Genivi LBS doesn't handle properties
   ... just use methods to access data
   ... so would like to understand the difference

   kaz: W3C Vehicle Data doesn't handle concrete location data
   except lane departure
   ... so we should see the data definition/structure of Genivi

   pc: ok
   ... would like to show it
   ... showing part of the LBS api definition
   ... a lot of set/get methods
   ... there is a "position" parameter
   ... hierarchy of the data

   ka: any figure about the hierarchy?

   pc: no figure at the moment
   ... but can generate it
   ... let's see "guidance"

   ka: is this document public?

   pc: this one itself is member-only
   ... there is a public repo as well

   ka: ok
   ... please send the address later
   ... btw, we should think about the basic policy/strategy for
   this TF

   pc: can generate a figure on the data hierarchy
   ... also take some examples
   ... to explain the guidance api

   ka: great

   pc: you know better how to deal with the data format for the
   W3C side, Kaz

   ka: regarding the strategy, we should involve more Tier1

   -> [7]https://www.w3.org/community/autowebplatform/participants
   BG participants

      [7] https://www.w3.org/community/autowebplatform/participants

   pc: I'm leading the work on the Genivi side

   ka: ok

   pc: but for the W3C side we need more participants

   ka: right

   pc: will be in Japan in July for an AGL meeting
   ... and can talk with JP stakeholders

   ka: great
   ... getting more participants in this BG is the key
   ... probably better to have Genivi guys as the BG participants

   pc: not sure Genivi guys have enough time

   ka: ok
   ... getting more BG participants in this TF is important
   ... and Genivi guys are also welcome :)

   pc: yes

   ka: let's continue to get more participants
   ... and also let's start detailed survey on the Genivi LBS spec
   ... you can provide some examples with the hierarchy figure

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [8]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([9]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/06/03 09:53:27 $

      [8] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2016 09:13:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:48 UTC