W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > July 2011

[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Agenda - 12 July 2011, 14:00Z

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 03:56:22 +0900
Message-ID: <4E1B4756.5060803@w3.org>
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Hi Home Network TF participants,

Let's hold a HNTF call tomorrow on 12 July.

Dial info
----------
Date&time: Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 14:00Z
Zakim Bridge: +1 617 761 6200 or zakim@voip.w3.org (SIP)
Conference Code: 93288 ("webtv")
IRC channel: #webtv

Agenda
-------
1. How to handle additional use case descriptions, e.g.,
    API category and concrete system interaction description
    (Please see also my notes below)

2. If time permits:
- Tatsuya Igarashi's use case: ISSUE-24
- Russell Berkoff's use case: ISSUE-17 (split into ISSUE-23, ISSUE-26, ISSUE-27, ISSUE-28, ISSUE-29, ISSUE-30)
- Matt Hammond: ISSUE-19, ISSUE-20, ISSUE-21, ISSUE-22

Resources
----------
Tracker:
   http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/2

Use Case discussion topics:
   http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions

Draft requirements document:
   http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements

Thanks,

Kazuyuki


On 07/06/2011 03:17 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
> available at:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/07/05-webtv-minutes.html
>
> also as text below.
>
> --------------------------
> Kaz's note and suggestion
> --------------------------
>
> When we started the call today, I thought the point was "what level of
> granularity is expected for use case description". However, it seems
> there are two specific (and a bit different from "granularity") points
> proposed by Igarashi and Russell.
>
> I think both Igarashi's proposal and Russell's proposal are not only
> related to their own issues but related to all the use case
> descriptions. On the other hand, I'm not 100% sure whether all the
> other use cases also have to explicitly define their proposed features
> or not.
>
> So I'd suggest we create a "Product", e.g., "Use Case Description" in
> the Tracker and continue the discussion on their proposals separately
> from use case discussion itself. Maybe we can clarify their points a
> bit more on the mailing list by the next call on July 12th.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> FYI, I think the summary of the points of Igarashi and Russell are as
> follows. I talked with Igarashi after the TF call and got
> clarification. However, unfortunately Russell had to leave right
> after the call, so maybe I couldn't capture Russell's point
> completely. Russell, please add modification if needed.
>
> Igarashi's point: API category
> -------------------------------
> As recorded in the minutes, Igarashi proposes all the use case
> descriptions should clarify what type of use case that discusses,
> e.g., one of the following for further discussion in the next step:
> - Type1: service-agnostic
> - Type2: service-specific
> - Type3: service-agnostic API and service-specific document via the API
>
> Russell's point: concrete system interaction description
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Even though we're concentrating on use cases and user scenarios,
> Russell is a bit concerned about actual system interaction for each
> user scenario. So (I think) he suggests we should add system
> interaction description to use case description. Some example
> description is available in ISSUE-17 at:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/UPnPHomeNetworkUA
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kazuyuki

-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:55:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 July 2011 18:55:42 GMT