Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

Date

Participants

  • Thomas Bayhi

  • Aaron Greenwood

  • Sudhakar Nallamothu

  • Tom Lusco

  • Tony English

  • Ariel Gold

  • Deborah Curtis

Goals

  • Discuss the process for developing a common architecture for OSS4ITS projects.

Discussion topics

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

  • Identifying redundancies, looking at places where code can be re-used.

    • Deb wants to avoid going back to teams about pieces until the overall OSS4ITS architecture is identified.

  • Ariel will be at TFHRC next week to discuss what makes sense going forward from the common architecture development.

  • V2X Hub, CARMA, and ODE make sense together. SDC is the outlier.

    • The vision overlaps, but the built functionality may not which needs to be investigated.

  • Ariel would like us to be clear in the distinction between the project vision and what is actually built and implemented.

  • Instead of building an ODE at Turner-Fairbanks, we will likely use the one that’s already been built by JPO.

    • We will also re-use pieces of ODE in CARMA cloud and only build the specific pieces that are required for housing CARMA data.

    • We should go into this process assuming that there are overlaps. Overlap CARMA and ODE and just look at what pieces are the same and where there truly is separate functionality.

    • Ariel’s goal is to lose branded functionality and overlap all the projects to see which box things actually fit into.

  • Clarifying what’s vision and what exists:

    • If something is just vision and doesn’t exist yet, Ariel wants to check if their is an overlap so that we don’t develop things that have duplicate functionality in other projects.

    • CARMA teams goal is to document as is and not representative of future work.

  • It’s not enough to have an overall diagram, it needs to be acted upon to clarify software functionality.

    • Ariel would like teams to present on the best course of action. The timeline is critical for making decisions right now.




  • Jayashree has 4-5 overview diagrams in SET-IT.

    • CARMA vehicles are not defined. Instead it shows as any vehicle with On Board Equipment.

    • Tom is going to look through SET-IT diagrams to correct issues.

      • Some lines have correct data but are displaying incorrect colors.

      • When we give this out to people, do we want to give them options or everything?

        • Deb would like to give people just one diagram.

        • We need one major high level diagram which aligns with the state standards which will force us to identify and address redundancies.

          • And then it should be drilled down to a more specific one for each project.

        • We need to have a stable number of diagrams in order to do merges.

        • Tony presented two options:

          • Merge the diagrams together in SET-IT using one diagram as the baseline.

          • Import the diagrams into RAD-IT and build them all together.

            • Tom believes the purpose of the project is to get SDC, ODE, CARMA, V2X Hub project teams to understand how their projects fit into the overall DOT architecture.

            • He believes it would be easier to pick one project and use it as the underlying architecture rather than going through the process of building from the ground up in RAD-IT.

        • The idea is for a state planner to take in a set of diagrams and upset their infrastructure.

          • Each project can be the scope of a single SET-IT project. If somebody used it, it could be imported into the regional architecture and used right away.

          • The benefit to RAD-IT instead would be that it would help get all the definitions in cleanly and clearly.

  • Sudhakar believes CARMA could have the diagrams ready in a few hours if they could agree on an ecosystem.

    • There should only be 4 CARMA diagrams based on his estimate.

  • SDC and ODE both have one drawing.

    • Privacy and sanitation is already built into the diagrams.

  • What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure changes always roll up and versions are controlled?

    • The zip of the architecture is put on Confluence and then we’re manually coordinating through bi-weekly calls to ensure that only one person owns the overall architecture at a time.

  • Changes.

    • Tom is comfortable with the changes that Tony has made.

    • CARMA

      • Driver and basic vehicle need to be defined as elements.

      • Both the CARMA platform and CARMA cloud are new physical objects.

      • Vehicle location and motion should not be a user defined definition. It should be using the ARC-IT flow.

        • Tom can massage it so that it works despite CARMA being the one sending the message.

      • ARC-IT specifications says that if the data is the same, it should be the same flow.

        • Instead of having 20 new flows, you might have 5. Tom can also help work that out.

      • Two major changes:

        • We can roll some of these definitions together.

        • We can use ARC-IT flows to make things easier.

    • Tom wants to own the file for a day and he will send something tomorrow to Sudhakar.

    • V2X Hub

      • Functional object is the only one that’s different.

      • Tom has not had a chance to look in depth at the V2X Hub SET-IT diagrams yet.

  • Next step is to put all of the diagrams into one place.

Action items

  • Tom Lusco to own the CARMA Setit for one day to help cleanup flows.
  • Tom Lusco to look at V2X Hub Setit to provide feedback to Sudhakar and Jayashree.

Decisions

  • Next meeting to discuss options with Ariel and Deb will be around 3:30 PM on March 11th
  • No labels