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

Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision

From: FUNAHASHI Yosuke <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 12:22:03 +0900
Cc: "'Kazuyuki Ashimura'" <ashimura@w3.org>, public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Message-Id: <8632F896-D133-4FED-A13B-7BEA80E98BE7@tomo-digi.co.jp>
To: 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>
Hi HJ,

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

I agree with you about the risk resides in architectural, conceptual  
or abstract discussion regarding this area.  But I still think it will  
make the IG more successful, if we do it appropriately.  And I also  
think we can make it.  I would like to explain the reason, but it  
takes some more time to word it.  So please wait a little bit longer.

Regards,
Yosuke


On 2010/10/01, at 18:11, 이현재 wrote:

> 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 Monday, 4 October 2010 03:22:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 October 2010 03:22:35 GMT