W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Categolize what APIs should be stardized

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:15:09 +0200
To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "Igarashi, Tatsuya" <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com>
Message-ID: <op.vzi77jxc6ugkrk@laptop>
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:55:47 +0200, Igarashi, Tatsuya  
<Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com> wrote:

> Hi Home Network TF participants,
>
> I would summarize my point which I tried to comment in the today's  
> teleconference.
>
> I believe that the most proposed user scenarios are meaningful and valid  
> from user perspective. In the sense, I do not have any objection to  
> accept all proposed user scenarios at this time.  But, at the next step,  
> if we have to prioritize the user scenarios, we should be care of what  
> type of APIs should be standardized to realize the proposed user  
> scenario.
>
> If the APIs are application(service) agnostic, e.g. generic discovery  
> APIs and generic message exchange API, then the proposed user scenarios  
> would be outstanding examples and we do not need to argue priority of  
> each user scenarios so much. Hopefully, more attractive user scenarios  
> will be realized based on the W3C standard.
>
> If the APIs are application(service) specific, e.g,  Remote TV channel  
> change APIs, then the prioritization of user scenarios is very crucial  
> and we have to argue if it is important for the stakeholders to  
> standardize such application specific APIs in W3C.
>
> To avoid a confusion on the priority discussion, I suggest that the  
> submitters of the user scenarios will add the description about what  
> type of API's should be scandalized.  e.g. generic local network  
> discovery and message exchange APIs. Depending on the description, we  
> can categorize the proposed user scenarios into the following two  
> general use cases as Giuseppe described in his email. Also, it makes  
> easy to discuss the priority of user scenarios at the next step.
>
> (General use case A)  enable communication with services using existing  
> and established application protocols (UPnP services, Bonjour services,  
> etc).
> (General use case B)  enable communication between 2 applications with a  
> "proprietary" protocol
>

Let me clarify my view: the 2 usecases (A, B) that I mentioned in another  
email thread and you list above are IMO not related to the high level VS  
low level (or service specific VS service agnostic) API discussion.
Actually I believe that a "low level" API could cover both cases.

So what I think we should do now is to look at all the usecases we have  
and give them some priorities.
Since we have had this discussion about low level VS high level API we  
should also capture it in a TF note and give our recommendation (if we  
have an agreement) or list the different opinions (if we are not in  
agreement).
This will be the input for a WG to start their work.

I want to underline that the work doesn't stop here, and a WG will have  
time to continue this discussion (and I expect all of us to be active in  
that WG).
Is just that for reasons related to how W3C is organized these kind of  
discussions need to happen in a WG.

So to summarize, I think this this is a valid discussion , and I'm sure  
the WG will have this discussion, but we don't have to necessarily reach a  
consensus on it in this TF.

cheers,
/g



> 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
>
>
>
>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 11:15:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:07 UTC