Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision

Hi HJ and Yosuke,

As you know, Chalres has generated the updated version of the draft
charter.  Please see:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/webTVIGcharter.html

And I think all the words in the draft charter seems reasonable in the
current context.

HJ, do you still think we should add a phrase saying "by identifying
and prioritizing the requirement and use cases" to the third bullet in
"1. Scope" section saying:
[[
Minimum clarification about the conceptual relationship between Web and
TV, especially the architectual relationship between the services on Web
and the TV services;
]]
?

If you really want and it's OK by Charles and others, I'm fine with
adding that since it wouldn't be harmful.

Regards,

Kazuyuki


On 10/04/2010 12:22 PM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
> Hi HJ,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
>
> I agree with you about the risk resides in architectural, conceptual or
> abstract discussion regarding this area. But I still think it will make
> the IG more successful, if we do it appropriately. And I also think we
> can make it. I would like to explain the reason, but it takes some more
> time to word it. So please wait a little bit longer.
>
> Regards,
> Yosuke
>
>
> On 2010/10/01, at 18:11, 이현재 wrote:
>
>> Dear Yosuke san,
>>
>> If clarification wants to cover every single details of web and TV. It
>> will take endless time. I'm fine with the word minimum in that regard.
>> However, if clarification of architecture/concept discussion starts,
>> it will expand/jump to unexpected area easily. That’s my experience of
>> various standard works during past 10 yrs. I think use case
>> elaboration would be efficient tool to get common understandings for
>> clarification for discrepancy between interesting party. We could
>> study or reference architecture from other SDOs. I think as of this
>> level of maturity, participants may have mostly sharing common sense
>> of relation and architecture of web and TV.
>>
>> With this experience in mind, I suggest not to use vague term such as
>> conceptual relationship and architectural relationship in scope section.
>> Rather I think clarifying can be done by identifying and prioritizing
>> the requirement and use cases.
>> That's why I mentioned missing words: use case and prioritizing.
>>
>> I think my industry term surely includes broadcasters as well as other
>> industries. Most major broadcasters in Japan, UK, USA, Germany, Korea
>> launched web services already even their service level is widespread.
>> The most difference will be hybrid support as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> HJ
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: FUNAHASHI Yosuke [mailto:yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp]
>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:19 PM
>> To: 이현재
>> Cc: 'Kazuyuki Ashimura'; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision
>>
>> Hi HJ,
>>
>>> Anybody to kindly explain or add opinion on the further
>>> clarification questions on Charter?
>>> 1> Scope : regarding minimum clarification on relation between Web
>>> and TV, even though it's minimum, architectural discussion will take
>>> a lot of time to converge. As we may already have common sense of
>>> general concept on Web and TV platform/service/apps, just starting
>>> use case elaboration and prioritization would be better for rapid
>>> progress. With this in mind, I would suggest to change Scope like
>>> below
>>
>> I am sorry to say that I do not agree with you. The reason is as
>> follows.
>> Most of the broadcasters who participate in the workshop think
>> sufficient common sense about Web and TV among the participants is not
>> formed yet, and lack of it made the meaning of the use cases and the
>> functions vague. Clarification about it is demand from the
>> broadcasters. Broadcaster is a part of industry too.
>>
>>> -.Identification of important requirements for the Web to function
>>> effectively with TV services on TV devices and TV-like devices;
>>> -.Identification of important requirements for TV to function
>>> effectively on various devices with services on the Web;
>>> -.Elaboration and prioritization of use case according to industry
>>> participants need;
>>
>> I would like to clarify the difference or relation between your
>> suggestion (third line) and above two lines (first line and second
>> line) before add your line to the draft charter.
>>
>> Could you tell me your understanding?
>>
>>> 2> Decision : I think decision entity in this specific Web and TV
>>> topic should be single. Scattered decisions will raise painful time
>>> to get agreement. Industry would not pay attention to W3C, if Web
>>> and TV decision is drifting at multiple places.
>>> With that, I suggest, on the condition that IG continue until 2012,
>>> IG should decide what is recommended, what should be additionally
>>> developed here or other WG, what should be removed for unnecessary
>>> complexity, what outside technologies should be referenced.
>>>
>>> Consistent with its mission, this group is not a decision-making
>>> body, but rather provides a forum for discussion and advice on
>>> different topics relating to the Web and TV.
>>> This group will act as a supreme committee regarding Web and TV. It
>>> would decide what is recommended, what should be additionally
>>> developed here or other WG, what should be removed for unnecessary
>>> complexity, what outside technologies should be referenced.
>>
>>
>> First of all, I would like to point out that your "industry" does not
>> contain broadcasters.
>>
>> Before expressing my opinion about this topic, I would like to hear
>> from Kaz about IGs typical role and position in W3C lately.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yosuke
>>
>>
>> On 2010/09/30, at 15:08, 이현재 wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Anybody to kindly explain or add opinion on the further
>>> clarification questions on Charter?
>>> 1> Scope : regarding minimum clarification on relation between Web
>>> and TV, even though it's minimum, architectural discussion will take
>>> a lot of time to converge. As we may already have common sense of
>>> general concept on Web and TV platform/service/apps, just starting
>>> use case elaboration and prioritization would be better for rapid
>>> progress. With this in mind, I would suggest to change Scope like
>>> below
>>>
>>> -.Minimum clarification about the conceptual relationship between
>>> Web and TV, especially the architectual relationship between the
>>> services on Web and the TV services;
>>> -.Identification of important requirements for the Web to function
>>> effectively with TV services on TV devices and TV-like devices;
>>> -.Identification of important requirements for TV to function
>>> effectively on various devices with services on the Web;
>>> -.Elaboration and prioritization of use case according to industry
>>> participants need;
>>> -.review and discussion of deliverables under development by other
>>> W3C groups, which touch on the use of the Web and TV;
>>> -.exploration of barriers to the Web and TV services working on TV
>>> devices and TV-like devices, and potential solutions;
>>> -.exchanging information about Web and TV activities around the world.
>>>
>>> 2> Decision : I think decision entity in this specific Web and TV
>>> topic should be single. Scattered decisions will raise painful time
>>> to get agreement. Industry would not pay attention to W3C, if Web
>>> and TV decision is drifting at multiple places.
>>> With that, I suggest, on the condition that IG continue until 2012,
>>> IG should decide what is recommended, what should be additionally
>>> developed here or other WG, what should be removed for unnecessary
>>> complexity, what outside technologies should be referenced.
>>>
>>> Consistent with its mission, this group is not a decision-making
>>> body, but rather provides a forum for discussion and advice on
>>> different topics relating to the Web and TV.
>>> This group will act as a supreme committee regarding Web and TV. It
>>> would decide what is recommended, what should be additionally
>>> developed here or other WG, what should be removed for unnecessary
>>> complexity, what outside technologies should be referenced.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> HJ
>>
>

-- 
Kazuyuki Ashimura / W3C Multimodal & Voice Activity Lead
mailto: ashimura@w3.org
voice: +81.466.49.1170 / fax: +81.466.49.1171

Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 11:49:59 UTC