W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2009

draft proposal for RFID/NFC API

From: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:35:19 +0900
Message-ID: <03F823891AF33D499971F7DDAB8EAD17039800A1@email2>
To: "David Rogers" <david.rogers@omtp.org>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, <Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com>, <robin@robineko.com>, <jmcf@tid.es>
Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi, 

This is a new draft proposal for RFID API.

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhpvgnmn_126fstszkcx 

Currently, RFID related issues was not included in the WG deliverables.
But a lot of mobile vendors(eg. Nokia, Samsung Electronics..) and  
forums (NFC, EPCGlobal..) are working now. 
	
So I think that RFID/NFC capability is no less important than 
camera/contacts capability, in mobile domain. Therefore, 
I hope DAP-WG can start to consider the RFID/NFC relate issues soon. 

Best Regards, 

--- Jonathan Jeon 

-----Original Message-----
From: 전종홍 
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:51 AM
To: David Rogers; Nilsson, Claes1; Tran, Dzung D; Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com; robin@robineko.com; jmcf@tid.es
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: RE: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events]

Hi, 

I think we need to consider also the contactless communication devices 
and their properties and APIs(NFC reader/tag, RFID reader/tag, etc). 

http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/api-reqs/ 

•MUST enable listing contactless communication devices (NFC, RFID) and their properties; 

Best Regards, 

--- Jonathan Jeon 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Rogers
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:36 AM
To: Nilsson, Claes1; Tran, Dzung D; Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com; robin@robineko.com; jmcf@tid.es
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: RE: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events]


Hi,

I have to say that from a personal perspective I agree, although then we could get into an academic argument about what if we had a USB API and a sensor was connected via USB (but I won't go there).

The question remains as to whether we should consider the subject of a sensors API as in-charter. Having re-read the charter, at the moment, I would say no. With the existing API proposals we have on the table I think we have a large amount of work and scope creep could be dangerous, taking apart any other potential IPR concerns.

Perhaps there is scope to start a separate discussion about the whole subject of transducers, not just sensors, With a view to re-chartering once there is something on the table (perhaps within the next year)? I wonder if the SCADA / PLC community would be interested in that part too?

Thanks,


David.
Director of External Relations, OMTP

-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nilsson, Claes1
Sent: 06 October 2009 09:44
To: 'Tran, Dzung D'; Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com; robin@robineko.com; jmcf@tid.es
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: RE: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events]

Thanks Jere for pointing at the earlier threads about sensors.

I agree that it will be difficult to specify a unique API for each type of sensor and that some kind of "generic" sensor API makes sense. That was what I meant by "universality".

Regards
  Claes

-----Original Message-----
From: Tran, Dzung D [mailto:dzung.d.tran@intel.com] 
Sent: måndag den 5 oktober 2009 18:34
To: Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com; Nilsson, Claes1; robin@robineko.com; jmcf@tid.es
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: RE: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events]

It would be difficult to cover all the sensors ever made here, since new sensors come out all the time. Also, Geolocation is already a separate API and I consider Geolocation (GPS) is a sensor. I don't think it makes sense to have an API for each of type of sensor. 

Maybe a separate overall sensor APIs makes sense?


-----Original Message-----
From: Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com [mailto:Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 06:00 AM
To: Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com; robin@robineko.com; jmcf@tid.es
Cc: Tran, Dzung D; public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events]

On 5.10.2009 15.46, "ext Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>
wrote:
> I don't know if I am walking out of scope but I am considering "Personal
> Metrics" within training and healthcare. For example we have personal pulse
> watches, blood sugar sensors and blood pressure sensors. Web application
> access to measurement data from that type of devices, either "built in" or
> communicating with the device is needed. I guess that we can't predict all
> types of information that we need to access so some kind of "universality"
> would be useful within this context.

I think the operative word here is definitely "sensors", but thinking about
it, I would keep APIs related to system information and related events
separate from sensor input. I know that the lines tend to blur there, and I
have certainly had many debates as to whether the battery charge indicator
is a "sensor" just as an accelerometer (to give just a quick example). It
depends on your view of the world, I guess. :-)

There's a start of a thread about sensors [1], and I know Robin cautiously
opined [2] earlier that such would fit under System Information and Events.
This could be the beginning of an interesting (and long, and maybe
unnecessary) philosophical discussion, but in practical terms I'm simply
concerned about lumping sensors with system events. From a developer's point
of view a dedicated API for sensor data would probably be more palatable.

The argument for "universality" in API structure applies here as well as
with system events, of course.

--Jere

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Aug/0049.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Aug/0078.html




Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 20:36:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:01 GMT