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

RE: System Level API spec editors

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:53:38 +0000
To: "Poussa, Sakari" <sakari.poussa@intel.com>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A3FBA748F@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
I've been focusing on what needs to be in the charter to get it submitted to the AC.  E.g. what's in or out of the spec deliverables list.  

For this particular WG, people are asking for example APis for the specs and also offers of editors to demonstrate interest. 

The 2 phases seems useful for the WG itself, but it could be a whitepaper or a document maintained by the WG.  It doesn't seem like something to fix in stone in the charter. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Poussa, Sakari
>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:57 PM
>To: Adam Barth; Carr, Wayne
>Cc: public-sysapps@w3.org
>Subject: Re: System Level API spec editors
>
>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 (we¹re 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 Saturday, 2 June 2012 00:54:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 2 June 2012 00:54:11 GMT