W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-autowebplatform@w3.org > January 2017

Re: ViWI Task Force calls

From: <ta-hirabayashi@kddi-ri.jp>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:51:13 +0900
Message-ID: <20170116105113.00005972.0690@kddi-ri.jp>
To: <ted@w3.org>
Cc: <ta-hirabayashi@kddi.com>, "public-autowebplatform" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>
Hi, Ted

Thank you very much for reply.

I'm agreeable to starting discussion for future protocol expansion 
including ViWi specs in BG.
I understand today’s call will be a preparatory conference to set up 
a new TF for the protocol expansion and approaches suitable for new 
relationships with other communities.

Best regards,

T.Hirabayashi
KDDI


----- Original Message -----
Hi Hira-san,

For the goals please see Rudi's email from 1 November.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Nov/0004.html


The scope will be clearer after the TF has had a chance to meet. At our
previous WG call/mini-f2f some possible scope ideas were mentioned
including collecting use cases to see how they both handle them,
architecture discussion (including review the previous time Auto WG
talked to W3C TAG), etc.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-automotive/2017Jan/0015.html


We are becoming more aware of other approaches that are very similar to
these two. PSA+IBM has one, AGL another, I understand Nissan a third
and hearing of possibly more. We have reached out to PSA and AGL has
recently contacted us. Clearly having a single approach would be best
as it would mean the standard would be more widely implemented and
adopted.

There is no predefined decision on a converged architecture so it would
be premature to say it would be RESTful although from the earlier TAG
discussion, the WG's earlier interest in REST (in addition to sockets)
it is possible.


We have not discussed a moderator but have at least two chairs already
planning to be a part.

There is no urgency, it has been nearly three months since we first
discussed this. There was interest in getting started and with a weekly
cadence call.  Often holidays fall on Mondays and suspect when that is
the case the meeting will be canceled. Tomorrow is a US holiday so I
think a few people might not make the preliminary call. I will attend.
If a TF wants to put energy into an effort they should be allowed and
encouraged. We had editors of both VISS and ViWi on the last BG call
who all indicated Mondays were good for them. This is an initial call
and it is possible for the schedule to change. 

https://www.w3.org/2017/01/10-auto-minutes.html


I am well aware of the VISS work. If you reread Rudi's mail you will
note that work it to proceed unhindered within the WG while the BG
explores possible future convergence. I imagine it will work that the
TF may come up with a path forward, regularly reporting to the larger
BG and collectively we will agree on a decision on how to proceed. TF
can only make recommendations and BG/WG decisions.

There is no name given to the TF. ViWi is the name of Member submission
from VW but I think we would come up with a more appropriate name for a
collaborative/combined effort if that is the final outcome.

I hope that answers your concerns and welcome a call with you directly
at a time convenient for you to discuss further.

Regards,

On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 06:55 +0900, ta-hirabayashi@kddi-ri.jp wrote:
> Hi, Ted
> 
> Before voting in the doodle, I would like to clarify the 
> followings:
> 
> - Goal of TF
> - Scope of TF 
>   - RESTful API, micro-server architecture ??
> - Moderator
> 
> - Specially, what is the most urgent and crucial thing 
>   needs weekly conference call?
> 
> As you are aware, we are now engaging in finalization and 
> prototyping of our VISS/VIAS to be in time for the time line
> of WG's charter.
> 
> I would suggest that scope of TF you proposed aims exclusively
> at one or two issues.
>  (e.g. RESTful API, multimedia/multidivice operation, 
>   micro-server architecture or something)
> 
> Finally, as naming of TF might could give a false impression as if
> we work for VW spec, it might be better to change naming to high 
> priority issues.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> T.Hirabayashi@KDDI
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> On our call earlier this week we discussed having a regular call to
> explore ViWi further. There was interest in setting a fairly high
> cadence at least at the beginning and meet weekly. Several of those
> polled suggested Mondays were good for them. International timezones
> are unfortunately impossible to resolve so we will settle on a time
> that works for critical mass and will use the regular BG calls to
> report on progress, along with this mailing list. 
> 
> Please take some time to fill in this doodle.
> 
> http://doodle.com/poll/3cggburr29rdqbbe

> 
> -- 
> Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> W3C Systems Team
> http://www.w3.org

> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> KDDI総合研究所
> 
> 平林 立彦
> HIRABAYASHI Tatsuhiko
> Tel: 03-6678-1946(代表)
> Mobile: 080-5941-4506
> Fax: 03-6678-0339
> E-mail: ta-hirabayashi@kddi.com
> Address: 〒102‐8460
> 東京都千代田区飯田橋3-10-10
> ガーデンエアタワー18階
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- 
Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
W3C Systems Team
http://www.w3.org



          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          KDDI総合研究所

          平林 立彦
          HIRABAYASHI Tatsuhiko
          Tel: 03-6678-1946(代表)
          Mobile: 080-5941-4506
          Fax: 03-6678-0339
          E-mail: ta-hirabayashi@kddi.com
          Address: 〒102‐8460
          東京都千代田区飯田橋3-10-10
          ガーデンエアタワー18階
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Received on Monday, 16 January 2017 10:51:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 16 January 2017 10:51:50 UTC