- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:30:53 +0900
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
available at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/07/26-webtv-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Home Networking Task Force Telconf
26 Jul 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0051.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/26-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Kazuyuki, MattH, Jerry, Clarke, Igarashi, aizu, Narm,
DongHyun, Richard, Bob
Regrets
Giuseppe, Francois
Chair
Kaz
Scribe
Kaz
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]ISSUE-17
2. [6]ISSUE-24
3. [7]ISSUE-20
4. [8]ISSUE-19
5. [9]ISSUE-21
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
ISSUE-17
issue-17?
<trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- Use Case: Home Network Enabled User-Agent --
raised
<trackbot> [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/17
[11] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/17
kaz: let's close this
everyone: ok
close issue-17
<trackbot> ISSUE-17 Use Case: Home Network Enabled User-Agent closed
ISSUE-24
issue-24?
<trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Local Link of web applications -- raised
<trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24
[12] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24
->
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/00
46.html Igarashi's update
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0046.html
igarashi: added description on API types
... issue-24 itself is a generic API
->
[14]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
ns/LocalLink#Use_Case:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications Wiki
description of ISSUE-24
[14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/LocalLink#Use_Case:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications
kaz: is the wiki description also updated?
igarashi: yes
kaz: do you want to include the information on ISSUE-9 and Opera's
API proposal in the wiki description as well?
igarashi: no, it's just additional explanation on what "generic API"
means
kaz: any opinion?
... if no objection, let's accept this proposal ISSUE-24
RESOLUTION: accept ISSUE-24
ISSUE-20
matt: would like to start with 20
issue-20?
<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- TV Querying and Control -- raised
<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/20
[15] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/20
->
[16]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
ns/TVControl Wiki description of ISSUE-20
[16] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TVControl
matt: restructured the issue
... possible interaction scenario is included
... JavaScript level API proposal for discussion as well
matt: (describes the detail of the proposal)
jerry: trying to understand
... target of the application which execute the API
... how to know where to execute APIs?
... home network devices could have a gateway
... server needs to know where to get the content from
matt: the intention is implementing APIs as JavaScript and use from
Web browsers
... what content is available where is an issue
... suppose DLNA terminology, media rendering device?
jerry: I think what you're saying is a TV device
matt: could be a TV device
... or a desktop browser
jerry: target of the API is a processing engine that has capability
... being discovered by the browser
... and capable of executing the APIs
... and that can describe what devices are/
igarashi: in this scenario, application is rather a device
... but application is running on devices
matt: will update the text
igarashi: this service-specific API is supported by the TV as well?
matt: the API could be supported by TV if it can process JavaScript
clarke: your suggestion is higher level API
... list of functions
... right?
matt: yes
igarashi: in scenario 1, there are several options
... maybe you should not use sequence number, but should use
non-ordered list
... the first step "The application discovers..." should be done
first, though
matt: will change
bob: a question
... level of APIs
... high-level APIs is useful
... but what level of APIs should be used?
matt: there is ability for application
bob: we started a high-level APIs within AT&T, and would like to
know how to cover the other implementations
... need more sophisticated kind of APIs?
matt: if you have information to share with me, would be appreciated
bob: agree the trade-off
... but how much task is expected for a User Agent?
... clarke's paper will be soon available
clarke: if we do something Bob suggested, i.e., lower-level APIs
implementable
... any preference from W3C viewpoint?
kaz: both levels would be welcome and useful
... our proposals should go to the other WGs, e.g., DeviceAPIs and
WebApps
... if they don't work very well for our proposals, we should create
yet another WG :)
<scribe> ACTION: matt to update issue-20 [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2011/07/26-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update issue-20 [on Matt Hammond -
due 2011-08-02].
igarashi: comment on scenario 2
... specific program?
matt: question on step 2?
igarashi: yes
matt: list of content available could be provided
... and we could ask the TV which program is available now
igarashi: ok
kaz: igarashi, do you want clarification in scenario 2?
igarashi: "application query" would be easier to understand?
matt: will use the term
ISSUE-19
issue-19?
<trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- Media Identification -- raised
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/19
[18] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/19
->
[19]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
ns/MediaIdentification Wiki description of ISSUE-19
[19] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/MediaIdentification
matt: content identifier
... hopefully more clear
... related to part of issue-20
kaz: do you think a specific URI could be used?
matt: a URI is a possibility
... BBC would like to include URI style identifier
... some provider might use different kind of identifier on some
platform
kaz: can we accept this proposal?
everybody: no objections
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-19 is accepted
ISSUE-21
issue-21?
<trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- Time synchronisation -- raised
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/21
[20] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/21
<MattH>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
ns/TimeSynchronisation Wiki description of ISSUE-21
[21] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TimeSynchronisation
matt: have no time to update this...
... (explains the proposal)
... similar to issue-19, any high-level APIs could be supported
rather than application-specific APIs
kaz: you'll update the description, and we should talk about this
next week?
matt: yes
kaz: no more proposals for today?
matt: no
kaz: any other topics?
everybody: no
kaz: ok. let's adjourn this call and talk with you all next week
... Giuseppe will be also available next week
[ adjourned ]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: matt to update issue-20 [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2011/07/26-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.136
([24]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/07/26 15:22:13 $
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 15:30:20 UTC