JOIN/SIGN UP
Already a Member? |
GET INVOLVED
Understanding and Engaging in COVESA Expert Groups & Projects |
COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS
HISTORICAL
SDV Telemetry Project - On Hold |
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By using this site, you are giving your consent for us to set cookies. |
As part of the investigation of all relevant standards and technologies in the Vehicle Connected Services project, this is a brief summary of the current (2019-06-24) state of the W3C Automotive working group standard for Vehicle Services Interface specification (formerly VISS), version 2.0.
The VISS version 1.0 is still in Candidate Recommendation status. The version 2.0 specification is currently named Vehice Services Interface (VSI?). Version 2 is currently being defined and often referred to inside group discussions simply as "Gen 2".
GENIVI Alliance participates actively in the W3C specification definition, in part through shared member companies, but also with GENIVI representatives (GENIVI & W3C have a collaboration agreement and GENIVI is set up as an official member of W3C).
The W3C specification is split into two parts: Core and Transport. The Core specification "describes the VSI messaging layer" whereas the Transport specification includes the "mapping of the messaging layer to selected transports".
NOTE: The intention here is to give a current snapshot, not to (re)-describe the group charter or intended scope of the final version 2.0 specification.
Describing current status, not planned scope
Note about current status:
Clarification of the split and formal definition of data taxonomy and data model ongoing. It is slightly unclear about the final intention and how to define one or several "mandated" data model content (e.g. VSS) and possible alternative data descriptions (mandated, optional, proprietary/private or unknown to others).
More to do to define service discovery (which is a wanted feature).
The chapters regarding Security seem to be not yet written, except for the brief Authorization note.
Describing current status, not planned scope
Note about current status:
The appendix defining the exact JSON format is not yet written. (VISS v1 standards could be reused as basis. There are likely other options.)
Discussions on other protocols tend to pop up from time to time (think for example MQTT). But should it be in scope?