Re: Chartering discussions and DAP [Was: [HOME_NETWORK_TF ...]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:27:49 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  
wrote:

> Hi Robin, All,
>
> A few comments regarding scope, charters and DAP ...
>
> I agree there is a potential for cooperative work between the DAP WG and  
> the Web&TV IG. Thus, I +1 the proposal for DAP's charter to include this  
> IG in its of related W3C groups and to build a good liaison between the  
> two groups.

Agreed.

> The DAP WG and Web+TV IG have separate charters because they have  
> different missions. The IG, still relatively new, appears to still have  
> quite a bit of work to do regarding the tasks list in its charter's  
> scope [IG-Scope]. As such, it seems a bit premature for the IG to  
> propose a new deliverable for DAP.

I don't think that's an accurate reflection. It is clear that the TV  
industry is moving to the Web, rather than being a mature player. That  
said, it is in itself a mature industry with some fairly well-defined  
requirements they are ready to specify.

The mission of the IG is to set requirements rather than to make the  
standards specifically to avoid the situation where different industry  
groups are working on different standards to do the same thing, and  
instead to ensure that requirements are taken into account by relevant  
existing groups. The clear expectation is that members of the IG will also  
participate in the Working Groups themselves, rather than expecting that  
someone else will take their requirements and do the work.

It is easy to see this in action in the HTML-WG, where various people have  
come from the TV group to participate in the requirements setting and  
subsequent specification of important relevant aspects of HTML5, working  
within the timelines of that group.

> The DAP WG still has a significant amount of work to do on the (high)  
> "Priority APIs" it started (see [DAP-deliverables]). As such, I think  
> DAP's primary focus should be to complete the high priority APIs (and to  
> not take on any new deliverables from this IG in the near term).

I think that high-priority work from the Interest Group is ready to be  
moved forward in a Working Group. For the parts that are in the scope of  
DAP, it makes sense to me that the charter include such work. I accept  
that DAP is also under time pressure to settle its charter, and I don't  
see any evidence that this is considered a problem by anyone from the TV  
side.

I therefore think it is reasonable and timely to be looking at including  
relevant work in the as-yet undetermined charter for DAP.

cheers

Chaals

> After the IG has completed its tasks related to analysis, Use Cases,  
> Requirements, etc., if there appears to be any standardization gaps that  
> are in DAP's scope, the groups should of course then discuss how to  
> proceed (with formal standardization).
>
> -Regards, Art Barstow
>
> [IG-Scope] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/webTVIGcharter#scope
> [DAP-Deliverables] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#roadmap
>
> -----
>
> Subject: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Timing of this TF (was: New TF on Home  
> Networking - Call for Participants)
> From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:43:05 +0200
> Message-Id: <C6326891-1F62-405E-B9C8-95047D17F4E4@berjon.com>
> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
>
> Hi all!
>
> The TF's announcement mentioned the following:
>
>  > Another goal for this first phase is also to identify
>  > - if the requirements can be addressed by one ore more existing W3C  
> WGs, OR
>  > - if a new WG is required, OR
>  > - if the work is out of scope for W3C
>
> In this respect, I would like to bring some timing-related information.  
> One of the WGs that could potentially pick up work from this TF is the  
> Device APIs and Policy WG (aka DAP). I don't think that we would take on  
> anything that is too strongly tied to TV, but we could probably be the  
> right place in which to standardise some generic aspects that are likely  
> to be useful across a broad spectrum of devices (for instance,  
> discovery).
>
> That's all fine and well but we're on a schedule. DAP's charter runs out  
> in June, and as a result we plan to have a new charter ready inside of  
> May (preferably on the earlier side of that month). Since we intend to  
> be strict with our charter's scope, everything that is meant to go into  
> DAP needs to be included in the charter. Therefore, any requirement  
> output from this TF that would be intended for DAP to pick up should be  
> defined within the next few weeks.
>
> I'm not saying this to discourage people — quite the opposite! I'm  
> pretty sure that if we bang our brains together we can come up with a  
> well-defined enough set of use cases and requirements in the home  
> networking domain. A lot of requirements discussions tend to start meta  
> with a "how do we gather requirements" discussion. I'd like to suggest  
> that we keep that to a minimum, perhaps just adopting the famous "dump  
> your brain into an email, refine later" methodology.
>
> Thoughts? Screams?
>


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 19:22:20 UTC