W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > June 2016

Re: webtv-ACTION-241: [Cloud Browser] Tuner Use Case update

From: Meerveld, Colin <C.Meerveld@activevideo.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:59:10 +0000
To: "Alexandra.Mikityuk@telekom.de" <Alexandra.Mikityuk@telekom.de>
CC: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C252689C-2867-46E6-9540-022D7FE8F1C9@activevideo.com>
Hi Alexandra,


As for the requirement coming out of this UC --> should we also put there a switching between 2 channels functionality or would it be implied by "to retrieve a tune signal"? (not sure if tv control api make a difference between these two)

I would say if you could receive a tune signal, you are also able to switch. However i had a hard time coming up with a requirement. In this case it is a requirement for the rte. Maybe it doesn’t really matter or do you think it should be more specific? for example: The rte should provide a means to retrieve a tune signal and playback the signalled source.


Another question is with regard to the application --> by application you mean a web app that runs within the Cloud Browser, right? I think that we will have this term in a lot of use cases, so maybe it would make sense to describe it in the terminology section? I could overtake that..

Good point. Application on its own is a bit ambiguous. Putting it in the terminology section would make sense. We could use something similar as the Home Network requirements [1]:

“For the purposes of this architecture, the term “application” refers to a collection of documents  to provide a "native application"-like experience within the Cloud browser."


Do you see any gaps/ reqs towards the tv control api or will the Cloud Browser API use the tv control api "out of the box”?

Not really gaps. There are some properties which makes less sense in the cloud. For example the amount of tuners is useful information for the cloud environment but should be abstracted to the application and provide unlimited virtual tuners. Also the source type should be irrelevant but is perhaps vendor/implementation specific.

could you please put the tv control api in the dependencies section (to know in a final document which of the existing api we reference)


I don’t think it is directly a dependency. It is something used in this use case to make it more concrete. i.e. without the control api the requirement for this use case still remains. But you are right that it depends on some api to provide a tune command. I Added the following sentence:

"This use case depends on an api to express a tune command such as the TV control api"

Thanks,

Colin

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/




-----Original Message-----
From: Meerveld, Colin [mailto:C.Meerveld@activevideo.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 2. Juni 2016 10:18
To: Web and TV Interest Group
Subject: Re: webtv-ACTION-241: [Cloud Browser] Tuner Use Case update

Hi All,

I updated the Tuner use case [1] with additional background information and a requirement as discussed in our last meeting [2]. In addition i used the template as suggested in [3].

If you have any question or comments, please let me know.

Thanks,

Colin Meerveld

[1] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_TF/UseCases/Tuner
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2016May/0019.html
[3] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_TF/UseCases#Template_for_Cloud_Browser_Use_Cases


On 27 May 2016, at 16:54, Web and TV Interest Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org<mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> wrote:

webtv-ACTION-241: [Cloud Browser] Tuner Use Case update

http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/241

Assigned to: Alexandra Mikityuk




[Cloud Browser] Tuner Use Case update
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 08:59:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 June 2016 08:59:45 UTC