...
- Which topic in the matrix will you provide resources to?
- Which topics are still missing?
- Are the already existing proposed (sub) projects appropriate for you?
- Is there any hindrance for you to participate in those existing proposed projects (GENIVI, W3C participation)
- Which (new) sub-project meeting will your company start and lead?
- Which parts (sub-trees in the hierarchy) of the standard data / services catalog will you provide input to?
- Which technologies would you like to propose in the "agreed-upon" technology stack?
- How can we start discussing your internal structure (organizational/technical) to understand how the CVII best supports it?
- E.g.: Which standards do you use today?
- Where is it realistic to introduce the new standards?
- Where (in your particular system) shall there be translation between legacy/proprietary and the new standards?
- Will your company further support the development of these types of activities by joining GENIVI and/or W3C?
...
Partial Reply RB GmbH (Bosch)
Which topic in the matrix will you provide resources to?
CATALOG | Develop main Standard Data Catalog |
(META)MODEL | Define standard Data model Rule Set / meta-model |
ALIGNMENT | Align with SENSORIS |
- Which topics are still missing?
- Not completely "missing", but "Services/RPC" are an important point, Currently (VSC) almost nothing, and not clear how it will "tie into" VSS without reinventing the wheel
- Gunnar: Good point. There are already discussions (in VSS call and RPC/VSC meeting) and some proposed strategy for this. But I think it's important enough to add, so I created a line in the table.
- In terms of ARA:: Com there are two perfectly matching mechanisms => Events and Methods => IMHO VSS is the perfect base for that discussion
- Gunnar: +1. To each company: please help us identify who (involved in AUTOSAR) can be part of driving that discussion.
- Kind of Kind of reference implementation (partly covered by kuksa.val) but whole stack is missingval) but whole stack is missing
- Gunnar: The key is to identify which parts are promoted as either "reference" or simply "good" implementation of each technology. What already exists vs. what is missing from a complete stack ought to be described (use a diagram), and then broken down into development project for the missing parts.
- Would a CVI Dev Kit help?
- Gunnar: One way we often do this is develop the components, then produce a demo that integrates them all. The demo should be placed in a combined repository (using appropriate technology such as references/git-submodules etc.)
- But if we can create a "dev kit" (with components, and documentations for how to integrate them) this is even more flexible.
Would a CVI Dev Kit help?
- Are the already existing proposed (sub) projects appropriate for you?
- VSS development project, W3C VISSv2
- Is there any hindrance for you to participate in those existing proposed projects (GENIVI, W3C participation)
- Which technologies would you like to propose in the "agreed-upon" technology stack?
- a more "binary" representation of requests in transport protocols instead of JSON (e.g CBOR, protobuf...)
- Gunnar: +1. This is a clear technology stack subproject.
- best practice how to extend/widen/leverage VSS data model to a fully semantic digital twin for knowledge engineering in backend
- DDS, MQTT, D-BUS, DAPR.IO, ...
- Gunnar: Indeed these are additional useful technologies. Other stakeholders may also give their view on priorities.
...
[ ] Ted Guild Can you help out to link to W3C meeting information. In particular I could only write "bi-weekly" but that does not specify exactly when. A link to wiki or mailing list where invites are sent, will help.
...
- Scope does not include to define who has access data
- Might be impacted by work by The Automotive Alliance?