2022-05-24 Architecture Meeting Minutes

🔓 Public Page

Agenda

• Antitrust

• Committee Welcome

• Meeting Minutes Review

• Proposal from Members starting JSON messaging

• Review proposals of Option Types for Vehicle

• Review analysis on valuation fields.

Meeting Minutes

• Antitrust Accepted

• Welcome was skipped for all members in attendance are active members

• Meeting Minutes Reviewed and Accepted

• Analysis of Current Systems for Multiple Engine types

  • In the last meeting, only a handful of vehicles with multiple engine types were discovered.

  • Analysis was done after the meeting to locate more examples and found that sometimes the option code are combining things like Fuel type and Cylinder number.

    • In the Master Code List for Option it states that we have different Categories (Accessories, Engine, etc), and we have a description and sub description.

      • V8D, is an example of Engine - 8 Cylinder, V Type (Diesel)

      • DIE, is an example of Engine - Diesel

        • These examples show that sometimes the CIECA Option Codes combine items and they are also available as single description.

      • EHEN, is an example of Engine - Electric Or Hybrid Engine

• Transmission Options Code in CIECAs Master Code List does not combine descriptions like the Engine Options do currently.

  • 3sp, is an example of Transmission - 3 Speed Manual

  • 4sp, is an example of Transmission -4 Speed Manual

    • CIECA has a different code list for Transmission Code

      • 00017, is an example of 3 Speed Manual Transmission

• Option Code today for CIECA is an OpenEnum, which allows for CIECA Codes and trading partner shared codes, this would allow for OEM or manufacturer codes to be shared and validated between the partners, with extension of the CIECA codes.

• Arrays are not mandatory today and will not be mandatory for these options codes

  • Arrays and validation of different array data is hard, an example of this is CIECA Option Code or Manufacturer Option Code. If we have one list we can validate the code, but not the code matches the type.

  • Another example is Address with US/States and Canada/Providence

• A proposal is made to make the ciecaEngineOption, ManufacturerEngineOption, ciecaTransmissionOption, manufacturerTransmissionOption to plural.

• We have a CIECA member that is working on JSON messaging with a trading partner at this time and wants to stay complaint with CIECA, but we do not have our standards out for JSON at this time. This is concerning that we will have to catch up with the industry and hurts the standards.

  • In talks with other Architecture members, it is a concern that we need to stay focused on moving the BMS to JSON and not get into the details of adding new things or changing the structure. The additions and changes would come from the committees that are experts on that area. The architecture team needs to stay focused on the Architecture Structure of the messages and schemas.

• CIECA Guideline on Arrays

  • When a there are similar things such as options in an array, some of them can be validated as CIECA codes and others will not be validated. So should the style guide say to separate them out?

• Should we change Options Type to be three different Code List (Vehicle Options, Engine Options, and Transmission Options)??

• The examples and sharing of the screen is best seen in the video.

• There have been many proposals made the last 2 weeks for Options for Vehicle, Engine and Transmission.

  • Can we get the examples from everyone before next Tuesday’s meeting, so everyone has time to review and address questions and concerns before the meeting.

👥 Great Meeting Everyone

Up Next

• Antitrust

• Committee Welcome

• Meeting Minutes Review

• Proposal from Members starting JSON messaging

• Review proposals of Option Types for Vehicle, Engine and Transmission

  • how to handle arrays and validation of different values in arrays

• Review analysis on valuation fields.

Action items

• All Members look at the Array Situation with Vehicle Options, Engine Options, and Transmission Options and propose the ideas that you think would work best before next Tuesday. This will give everyone to come up with questions and concerns and help focus the next meeting. Some of the proposals is to stay as it is with the BMS and Option List be the Options for Vehicle, Engine and Transmission, another proposal is to have multiple powertrains with one engine and one transmission for each powertrain, another proposal is to have no powertrains and have array of engine and array of transmission and each of those have an array for optionCodes, and so on.
• Can we have the one Option list as today and each customer add the OEM or manufacturer implementation values to the list as they would in the BMS today?