RE: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs"

Hi Art,

Thanks for your proposal and inputs. As raised in many other e-mails we believe that BONDI may be also be a baseline for the Technical Specification work. 

 As you may know, I have led the development of the Device Status API within BONDI, where another colleague (Daniel Coloma CCed) has been leading the Interfaces BONDI Group. We believe that it is important to review as many contributions for the baseline as possible, and hence we have gone through your baseline suggestion and through BONDI API (see attached) to find out which are the key similarities and differences.

 The comparison is available as well at: 

https://files.morfeo-project.org/mymobileweb/public/BondiDeviceStatus.xhtml


 In short, BONDI API seems to be a more complete API in general, while asynchronous and one shot retrieval schemas could be improved following the initial proposal you submitted. We believe that the baseline for the Technical Specification should provide a similar functionality to which BONDI is currently offering, otherwise we won't be meeting the expectations from many parties in this area.

 We will try to compare the rest of your contributions with BONDI APIs asap so we can have a clear idea on what the similarities and differences of both are.

 We are also in the process of translating the current API specification to W3C-like format, hope to have it ready during next week.

 Last, but not least, this area is key for Telefónica, thus we will be glad to have in W3C such as an active role as the one we are having in BONDI, for instance being editors of the specification.

Best Regards

-----Mensaje original-----
De: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] En nombre de Arthur Barstow
Enviado el: viernes, 24 de abril de 2009 2:19
Para: public-device-apis@w3.org
Asunto: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs"

We want to standardize some of the "Concrete APIs" discussed at last December's Device API workshop [1]. More specifically, we propose creating specifications for the following APIs:

1. Calendar
2. Camera
3. Contacts (aka Address Book)
4. Messaging
5. System Information

For each of the above APIs, I attached a separate input and an appendix that includes common definitions shared by some of these APIs. We offer these inputs, under the terms of the W3C Patent Policy, as a starting point (strawman proposals) for the standardization effort.

We also propose the attached draft Charter for a new Working Group whose deliverables will include these APIs.

If the W3C agrees to add these APIs to a WG Charter, we will commit resources to drive the specification work including the Editor role.

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report#Concrete>