W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

Re: System Level API spec editors

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:48:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia9q-9tuQ9=mN41Y1n_H-oS4FfuApiEGVk_PRSOYOu1JhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Cc: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Wayne,

As I mentioned in my original message on this topic, I'd like to
roughly divide the deliverables in the charter into two groups: the
group that we'll begin working on immediately and the group that we'll
start working on once we build up some momentum.  It's sounds like
you're most interested in the scope and IPR commitments, which
encompass the union of these groups.  When I'm asking folks what
they'd like to work on first, I'm more concerned with the first group.

Adam


On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote:
> Those are suggestions for how the WG should get started.  Separate from the charter, it may be useful to think about how the WG should start, but that is up to the people who join the actual WG and shouldn't be dictated by the charter.
>
> What we need to decide in the charter is the scope of what the WG is allowed to work on for that first 2 years.  If it isn't in the scope of the charter, they can't work on it, and no one has any licensing commitments related to it.  So, while we don't want to include things no one wants to work on, we also don't want to over constrain the WG before we even know who they are.
>
> People (not just in this mail list) have asked for those who want the WG to start to demonstrate resource commitments.  That's what we're doing with our email on editors.  We hope others who've written specs like these will also offer editors.  Multiple editors from multiple orgs would be good for this consolidation type effort.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com]
>>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:01 PM
>>To: Carr, Wayne
>>Cc: public-sysapps@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: System Level API spec editors
>>
>>I think we agree that we would like to eventually produce specifications for many
>>(if not all) of the things you've listed.  The issue is more what we'll have the
>>bandwidth to achieve in the near term.
>>
>>Spamming the working group with FPWDs isn't a path to success.  A path to
>>success is first agreeing on basic things like whether the APIs ought to be
>>synchronous or asynchronous or whether we ought to use callbacks or events,
>>etc.  To have those discussions, we only need a handful of representative specs in
>>front of us to work through.  Once we've got some momentum, then we can
>>scale up and work on more specs.
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote:
>>> There are a bunch of systems that already have similar, but incompatible APIs
>>for these things.  What we see as the purpose of the proposed WG is to provide a
>>forum where at least some of those can be consolidated into a standard set of
>>APIs.  We don't see it as a bad thing that that would happen with a lot of
>>specs.  That's really the point.
>>>
>>> Doing it with one or two specs would be fairly useless.  Intel would not support
>>vastly cutting back this proposed WG.
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com]
>>>>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:47 PM
>>>>To: Poussa, Sakari
>>>>Cc: Carr, Wayne; public-sysapps@w3.org
>>>>Subject: Re: System Level API spec editors
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Sakari.  Three seems much more achievable than 12.  :)
>>>>
>>>>I'm hoping to collate all the information folks have sent to the list
>>>>and to propose an updated draft of the charter on Monday.
>>>>
>>>>Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Poussa, Sakari <sakari.poussa@intel.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the top ones from that list would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Bluetooth
>>>>> 2. Telephony
>>>>> 3. Power / Resource management
>>>>>
>>>>> You asked 1 or 2, I gave you 3 - sorry about that ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> For Bluetooth, I think we have a reasonable API in Tizen. At least
>>>>> we spent a lot of time with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Telephony, while quite complex this would put the security model
>>>>> in test.
>>>>>
>>>>> For power/resource, this should be simple enough to get things going
>>>>> and agree on style, etc. topics.
>>>>>
>>>>> -sakari
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/1/12 1:33 PM, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>This list is too long.  Even if we find a dozen qualified editors to
>>>>>>work on these drafts, the working group won't have the bandwidth to
>>>>>>review that many specs at the start, and the result will be
>>>>>>low-quality specs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you have one or two of these that are most important to work on first?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Adam
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>>>> We will need to go through our usual (very long) approval process
>>>>>>> to participate in the WG, but we can make a provisional offer to
>>>>>>> edit the following specs.  This is an offer for after we get our
>>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>> (Legal) approval and the WG is approved and starts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mozilla indicted they may offer editors for some, so we would be
>>>>>>>offering to  join them on any that overlap ­ and we hope others
>>>>>>>offer editors for these  or the other specs too.  We assume the WG
>>>>>>>will choose editors and that specs  will have multiple editors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specs we would offer editors for (wešre also still looking at another):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sensors API. Examples: No sample draft, but previous work was done
>>>>>>>in DAP,  likely Web Intents based and including sensors in local
>>>>>>>network.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Network Interface API. Examples: B2G Mobile Connection, B2G WiFi
>>>>>>> Information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secure Elements API. Examples: none
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alarm API. Examples: Tizen Alarm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Calendar API. Examples: B2G Calendar, Tizen Calendar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contacts API. Examples: Tizen Contacts, B2G Contacts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NFC API. B2G Web NFC, Tizen NFC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Accounts API. Examples: none
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bluetooth API. Examples: Tizen Bluetooth, B2G Web Bluetooth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Media Storage API. Example: Tizen Media Content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Power Management API. Example: B2G Power Management
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Resource Lock API. Example: B2G Resource Lock
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephony API. Examples: B2G Web Telephony, Tizen Call
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 21:49:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 June 2012 21:49:03 GMT