Generic Communication Protocols Evaluation Project

What is this? → Please refer to the projects overview page for a quick introduction, then for more details, the Kickoff slides, and recording.

The project is completed.

FARACON tool delivered, look here.
Published papers here.

Historical meeting details

Link to Zoom meeting: https://zoom.us/j/741931761
ID de réunion : 741 931 761
For local dial-in, visit : https://zoom.us/u/aeDLu354w5
Agenda
- Data & interfaces modeling (continuation of last week's discussion)
- FARACON: wki page and linkedin post for dissemination
- AOB

Webinar: delivered twice on 24 & 25 September

Title: Franca / ARA::COM Interoperability - Establishing interoperability of Linux-based systems and Adaptive AUTOSAR systems by model-to-model transformations
slide deck
recording
latest release (v0.9) of the transformation tool: franca_ara_tools/wiki/FARACON-Developer-Guide#how-to-build-the-command-line-tool-from-source repository

Meeting Minutes ← use link

Presentations Materials ← use link

Project pages (list)

Definitions

Generic Protocol (in this context):

“Network (*and d IPC) protocols acting primarily as a transparent data carrier, applicable to many different application domains, but including convenience features above that of a plain data stream (socket). For example: data encoding, segmenting, opaque target addressing, routing, peer authentication, delivery guarantee, data integrity and service-discovery.”

• In other words, we are concerned with OSI model levels 5-6 (approx.)
• To reduce scope – focused on segmented segmented, atomic, event/message event/message- based semantics more than “streaming data”
• *IPC needs to be in scope, because of shared parts (data encoding) similarity, and that network-transparency is often a design goal.

<Single "project" definition to be copied from GA slide deck and then edited.>

Project Goals

Please view the introduction in this slide deck

Use cases

Information about real-world functions (ideally from user perspective) to anchor the technical discussion.

FILL IN HERE!!!

Philippe C

NB: see the target architecture in the attached file

The vehicle position computed in the telematic box shall be provided to applications carried by the smartphone

the vehicle position is either raw (i.e. coming from the GNSS sensor) or estimated (i.e. computed by a dead reckoning algorithm)

Transmission of data shall be seamless

to avoid mismatch between data types
to reduce diversity of specifications by using a common format

Requirements:

Evaluation criteria for GPRO technologies

List of relevant technologies ← use link

Comparisons of different communication protocols/technologies

Overview Page containing one-paragraph summaries of REST/JSON/XML/SOAP.
When survey/knowledge sharing phase winds down, the Evaluation Criteria page should be extended, evntually leading to comparisons and possibly recommendation.

Feature Selection

We looked at the possibility to use feature-modeling tools (example: Feature IDE) to encode a database (model) of possible protocol features. Normal use of such tools is rather to define how a system can be configured, including all constraints, and then to present a UI to do that configuration (I.e. selecting features rather than comparing solutions), but it could be useful.
Feature Selection tooling is definitely useful for complex feature modeling, so it's worth knowing about it and documenting it. See May 15, 2018 in the Minutes .

The video is being recoded and combined into one. New (smaller) version is coming soon: