RE: DAP Roadmap, priorities

Hi,

Even though not included in the "prioritized 4 APIs" that our WG agreed to work on first there have been discussions on system information and sensors APIs. It seems as our common understanding is:
“Make what is often used simple and make what is more seldom used possible”.

Tangible this means:
a. There is a draft System Information & Events API (http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/system-info/), which is a “Hardwired” API for access to typical mobile device system information such as battery, network status and audio/video capabilities and to some sensor data such as temperature.

b. There is still no draft for a “Generic” sensor API.

As I see a lot of use cases for a "generic" sensor API, relating for example to mobile device accessories, healthcare, training etc, I volunteer to work on use cases and act as editor of a "generic" sensor API specification.

Ok?

Best regards
  Claes

-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Sent: tisdag den 10 november 2009 11:29
To: public-device-apis
Subject: DAP Roadmap, priorities

Hi,

Per my ACTION-60, I have started working on a roadmap for our WG
deliverables at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#roadmap


I have listed at the top the APIs that were identified as our priorities
in one of our early teleconfs [1], although we didn’t make it a formal
resolution as far as I can tell. The APIs we agree to work on in
priority [2] are:
• Contacts
• Calendar
• Filesystems
• Messaging

Note that at this time, we only have active work on the Contacts API in
that list, and some discussions around Filesystems — the lack of work on
the two others is somewhat worrying. I think it would be useful to get
people volunteering to come up with Editors drafts for Calendar and
Messaging at the very least.

I have heard several people thinking that the photo/audio/video capture
API should also be a priority (myself included, actually), so maybe this
is something we should reconsider.

I would be also useful if the WG could approve the rough schedule
(ideally after having agreed on more specifics for the priority APIs).

I haven’t put any policy-related spec in the table, since I don’t think
we have a very clear idea on how they are going to be articulated at
this point; but when/if we do, we should definitely add them to the
table.

Ideally, we should discuss that roadmap each time we fall behind
schedule on any of the priority items and update it after that
discussion. I hope the Chairs can take responsibility for this, but I’ll
try to watch this as well.

I have also started listing API that we will not work on (per previous
discussions), as well as APIs that have been suggested for future work
(which matches Robin’s ACTION-56), although that latter list might be
usefully moved to a wiki page as suggesting in the said action item.

Dom

1.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Sep/att-0050/Device_APIs_and_Policy_Working_Group_Teleconference_--_16_Sep_2009.htm#item07

2. this also takes of Robin’s ACTION-55; this might also take care of
Frederick’s ACTION-57, although this is not in the wiki

Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 13:30:30 UTC