- From: Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:27:41 -0600
- To: "Igarashi, Tatsuya" <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com>, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Russell Berkoff <r.berkoff@sisa.samsung.com>
Please see inline below > -----Original Message----- > From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Igarashi, Tatsuya > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:48 AM > To: Giuseppe Pascale; public-web-and-tv@w3.org; Russell Berkoff > Subject: RE: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Home Network Technologies > > Hi Giuseppe and Russell, > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > Hi Giuseppe, > > Hi Russell, thanks for your comment and let me clarify my point > > > > > > > > I certainly didn’t intend to ignore or preclude W3C provisioning of > > > alternative Home Network technologies. > > > > > > However, phrases like "generic" and "also works with" could imply > > > something more (such as convergence or interoperability of HN > > > technologies). The use cases (and ecosystem impact) for doing this > > > kind of convergence at a spec level (vs a device bridges between > > > multiple HN > > > technologies) would need to be considered very carefully. > > > > > I agree. My point was that the analysis should start looking at a > > wider scope than just UPnP, looking if some convergence is possible > > and at which level. One possible outcome could be that this > > convergence is possible just in same areas or is not possible at all. > > > > I would encourage TF participants to share their opinion on this > point. > > > > In my understanding, the TF will not discuss the provision of > alternative Home Network technologies. Rather, it will discuss a W3C > standard of home network API that an web application controls the device > compliant with existing Home Network technologies. I think the ultimate goal should be an API that will work with the home network technologies that are expected to be in use. > > It is preferable that the home network API is very generic and can apply > any Home Network technologies, but the W3C solution has to specify a > basic framework, such as, device discovery, for interoperability. I > think that the UPnP industrial standard is a good starting point for the > TF discussions, though any other Home Network technologies would be > excluded for the discussion. I hope the previous sentence was intended to say "... though any other Home Network technologies would __not__ be excluded ...". For industry, and W3C, acceptance, I think it is important to support those home networking technologies being adopted in the market place. > > In terms of the phases like, "generic" and "also works with", I > supposed that any UPnP device-types and service-types should be > supported by the API if the solution is based on UPnP. If there are the > requirements specific to a certain UPnP device-type, such as MediaServer > and MediaRender, it would be another discussion from the basic > framework. We have done some initial investigation that suggests that device and service discovery for multiple home network technologies could be exposed in a generic way. More investigation is needed to determine if service specific actions can be exposed in a common way. For this reason, it appears to make sense to think about a basic framework for discovery and a more extended framework related to service actions. Thanks, Bob Lund CableLabs > > Thank you. > > -***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***--***---***---***- > Tatsuya Igarashi (Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com) NS Development Dept. > Technology Development Group Sony Corporation > (Voice) +81-3-5435-3252 (Fax) +81-3-5435-3274 > >
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 16:28:49 UTC