Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision

On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:45:06 +0200, 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com> wrote:

> Hi, Ashimura san,
>
> I would prefer to have separate bullet to mention Use case elaboration  
> according to prioritized requirement of industry needs.
> Combining it together with what I intended to delete seems not  
> reasonable.

I agree, and that is a change I mean to make.

> Another one to pick, the 1st sentence of scope might induce unnecessary  
> confusion of interpreting like W3C could make  
> terrestrial/cable/satellite broadcasting specification, I understand web  
> contents is separate (normally) or auxiliary (in the case of hybrid) to  
> main broadcasting video contents.
>
> Lastly, about the decision, Is everybody fine with this entity will  
> decide nothing? Just pass topic to others to handle our web and tv?
> I strongly suggest this specific web and tv decision entity must be  
> centralized single entity. If IG cannot do this, maybe steering  
> committee or whatever should be formed to do the role. If decision is  
> distributed, this work may as well not be formulated.

These two things are linked. We're not going to make broadcast
specifications and the like, we are focusing on the Web aspects of what
needs to be done.

And we need to do that in the context of existing work on the Web. It is
no good for *this* group to try and rewrite HTML5. That needs to be done
in the HTML5 group. This group can first identify that it is an important
priority that hasn't yet been met, and then suggest ways to go about it.
The HTML5 group is where the decisions will be made. People interested in
doing that develop (or for that matter if we decide that we should
recommend to IETF that they work on HTTP adaptive streaming, or whatever)
should then join that group, ensuring that people with TV expertise are
working with experts in the existing Web ecosystem to produce something
that works for both sides.

This group is not going to be able to make decisions for groups like
HTML, SVG, and get those groups to simply adopt the decisions - the
quickest way to achieve that is to work in those groups with the
existing members.

The value of having this group is that different parts of the TV industry  
can discuss different topics relevant to them - there are many things that  
are important to TV, but not to all the other groups we are likely to work  
with, so they do not provide such a forum. On the other hand, being inside  
W3C means that we are at least accessible to them, and have easy ways to  
communicate.

cheers

Chaals

> Best regards,
> HJ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kazuyuki Ashimura [mailto:ashimura@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 8:49 PM
> To: FUNAHASHI Yosuke; 이현재
> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Subject: Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision
>
> Hi HJ and Yosuke,
>
> As you know, Chalres has generated the updated version of the draft
> charter.  Please see:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/webTVIGcharter.html
>
> And I think all the words in the draft charter seems reasonable in the
> current context.
>
> HJ, do you still think we should add a phrase saying "by identifying
> and prioritizing the requirement and use cases" to the third bullet in
> "1. Scope" section saying:
> [[
> Minimum clarification about the conceptual relationship between Web and
> TV, especially the architectual relationship between the services on Web
> and the TV services;
> ]]
> ?
>
> If you really want and it's OK by Charles and others, I'm fine with
> adding that since it wouldn't be harmful.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kazuyuki
>
>
> On 10/04/2010 12:22 PM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
       je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 06:35:59 UTC