W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > October 2010

Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision

From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:29:25 +0900
Message-ID: <AANLkTikY-nOiiNuKPcTHWjjTG=tmteLGokxNBV744Lu3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pfeffer, Heiko" <heiko.pfeffer@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>, FUNAHASHI Yosuke <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp>, 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>
2010/10/4 Pfeffer, Heiko <heiko.pfeffer@fokus.fraunhofer.de>

> Dear all,
>
> I just joined the list, so let me shortly introduce myself: my name is
> Heiko and I'm working as project manager at the Fraunhofer Institut FOKUS,
> where we are researching and developing cross-device and cross-OS
> applications.
>
> We are thus especially interested in technologies and standards to bridge
> the gap between application development for TV sets, classic workstations,
> and mobile computing devices.
>
> We would be happy to contribute to the area of inter-device communication
> and access to device-specific resources. We are also leading the Webinos
> project (http://webinos.org/) that has just been kicked-off and whose
> output may be quite valuable for the Web and TV WG.
>
> What do you think about including a task similar to the following:
> "Exploration of technologies to discover and access device specific
> resources and services to enable the development of applications that can
> run on devices stemming from the TV as well as the Web domain."
>

I like this idea, and interested in this topic. That looks very nice if Web
can be used and easily adoptive for cross-devices according to each device
characteristics. But, not sure whether it is in scope of this IG since it is
targeting for TV stand alone, not mobile device and others either. For
further clarification, perhaps TV term in this IG should be clearly defined
(e.g., just mean for fixed TV or all of usable devices for TV, etc...)


Daniel
-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
http://www.soohongp.com, twitter:@natpt



>
> Cheers
> Heiko
>
> | Dr. Heiko Pfeffer
> |
> | Fraunhofer FOKUS
> | Institute for Open Communication Systems
> | Kaiser-Augusta-Allee 31, 10589 Berlin, Germany
> |
> | em@il: heiko.pfeffer@fokus.fraunhofer.de
> | phone: +49 30 3463 7265
> | fax:   +49 30 3463 8265
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kazuyuki Ashimura
> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 13:49
> > To: FUNAHASHI Yosuke; 이현재
> > Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> > Subject: 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 14:49:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:02 UTC