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

Re: System Level API spec editors

From: Poussa, Sakari <sakari.poussa@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:57:06 +0000
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
CC: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBEE8845.17769%sakari.poussa@intel.com>
Adam, 

My answer (list of APIs) was targeting the 'begin working on immediately',
i.e., the first group.

-sakari

On 6/1/12 2:48 PM, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:

>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 (we©öre 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 21:57:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 June 2012 21:57:38 GMT