W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > October 2010

RE: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision

From: 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:11:26 +0900
To: "'FUNAHASHI Yosuke'" <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp>
Cc: "'Kazuyuki Ashimura'" <ashimura@w3.org>, <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001cb6148$a05fe5d0$e11fb170$@lee@lge.com>
Dear Yosuke san,

If clarification wants to cover every single details of web and TV. It will take endless time. I'm fine with the word minimum in that regard.
However, if clarification of architecture/concept discussion starts, it will expand/jump to unexpected area easily. That’s my experience of various standard works during past 10 yrs. I think use case elaboration would be efficient tool to get common understandings for clarification for discrepancy between interesting party. We could study or reference architecture from other SDOs. I think as of this level of maturity, participants may have mostly sharing common sense of relation and architecture of web and TV.

With this experience in mind, I suggest not to use vague term such as conceptual relationship and architectural relationship in scope section.
Rather I think clarifying can be done by identifying and prioritizing the requirement and use cases.
That's why I mentioned missing words: use case and prioritizing.

I think my industry term surely includes broadcasters as well as other industries. Most major broadcasters in Japan, UK, USA, Germany, Korea launched web services already even their service level is widespread. The most difference will be hybrid support as far as I can tell.

Best regards,
HJ

-----Original Message-----
From: FUNAHASHI Yosuke [mailto:yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp] 
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:19 PM
To: 이현재
Cc: 'Kazuyuki Ashimura'; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision

Hi HJ,

> Anybody to kindly explain or add opinion on the further  
> clarification questions on Charter?
> 1> Scope : regarding minimum clarification on relation between Web  
> and TV, even though it's minimum, architectural discussion will take  
> a lot of time to converge. As we may already have common sense of  
> general concept on Web and TV platform/service/apps, just starting  
> use case elaboration and prioritization would be better for rapid  
> progress. With this in mind, I would suggest to change Scope like  
> below

I am sorry to say that I do not agree with you.  The reason is as  
follows.
Most of the broadcasters who participate in the workshop think  
sufficient common sense about Web and TV among the participants is not  
formed yet, and lack of it made the meaning of the use cases and the  
functions vague.  Clarification about it is demand from the  
broadcasters.  Broadcaster is a part of industry too.

> -.Identification of important requirements for the Web to function  
> effectively with TV services on TV devices and TV-like devices;
> -.Identification of important requirements for TV to function  
> effectively on various devices with services on the Web;
> -.Elaboration and prioritization of use case according to industry  
> participants need;

I would like to clarify the difference or relation between your  
suggestion (third line) and above two lines (first line and second  
line) before add your line to the draft charter.

Could you tell me your understanding?

> 2> Decision : I think decision entity in this specific Web and TV  
> topic should be single. Scattered decisions will raise painful time  
> to get agreement. Industry would not pay attention to W3C, if Web  
> and TV decision is drifting at multiple places.
> With that, I suggest, on the condition that IG continue until 2012,  
> IG should decide what is recommended, what should be additionally  
> developed here or other WG, what should be removed for unnecessary  
> complexity, what outside technologies should be referenced.
>
> Consistent with its mission, this group is not a decision-making  
> body, but rather provides a forum for discussion and advice on  
> different topics relating to the Web and TV.
> This group will act as a supreme committee regarding Web and TV. It  
> would decide what is recommended, what should be additionally  
> developed here or other WG, what should be removed for unnecessary  
> complexity, what outside technologies should be referenced.


First of all, I would like to point out that your "industry" does not  
contain broadcasters.

Before expressing my opinion about this topic, I would like to hear  
from Kaz about IGs typical role and position in W3C lately.

Regards,
Yosuke


On 2010/09/30, at 15:08, 이현재 wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Anybody to kindly explain or add opinion on the further  
> clarification questions on Charter?
> 1> Scope : regarding minimum clarification on relation between Web  
> and TV, even though it's minimum, architectural discussion will take  
> a lot of time to converge. As we may already have common sense of  
> general concept on Web and TV platform/service/apps, just starting  
> use case elaboration and prioritization would be better for rapid  
> progress. With this in mind, I would suggest to change Scope like  
> below
>
> -.Minimum clarification about the conceptual relationship between  
> Web and TV, especially the architectual relationship between the  
> services on Web and the TV services;
> -.Identification of important requirements for the Web to function  
> effectively with TV services on TV devices and TV-like devices;
> -.Identification of important requirements for TV to function  
> effectively on various devices with services on the Web;
> -.Elaboration and prioritization of use case according to industry  
> participants need;
> -.review and discussion of deliverables under development by other  
> W3C groups, which touch on the use of the Web and TV;
> -.exploration of barriers to the Web and TV services working on TV  
> devices and TV-like devices, and potential solutions;
> -.exchanging information about Web and TV activities around the world.
>
> 2> Decision : I think decision entity in this specific Web and TV  
> topic should be single. Scattered decisions will raise painful time  
> to get agreement. Industry would not pay attention to W3C, if Web  
> and TV decision is drifting at multiple places.
> With that, I suggest, on the condition that IG continue until 2012,  
> IG should decide what is recommended, what should be additionally  
> developed here or other WG, what should be removed for unnecessary  
> complexity, what outside technologies should be referenced.
>
> Consistent with its mission, this group is not a decision-making  
> body, but rather provides a forum for discussion and advice on  
> different topics relating to the Web and TV.
> This group will act as a supreme committee regarding Web and TV. It  
> would decide what is recommended, what should be additionally  
> developed here or other WG, what should be removed for unnecessary  
> complexity, what outside technologies should be referenced.
>
> Best regards,
> HJ
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 09:58:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 October 2010 09:58:47 GMT