- From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 22:56:20 +0100
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hi, At the last conf call I attended (22nd June) it was suggested that I should look at how issue-20 (TV Control) [1] be best combined with issue-4 (Service UI) [2]. Having spent some time considering this, I am not sure I understand the rationale presented for suggesting the best fit be issue-4. The intended purpose of the "TV Control" use case is to highlight a particular class of application that it should be possible to implement. Issue-28 (Home Network UA Media Controller) [3], for example, seems to aim to achieve a similar goal for applications that initiate and control the streaming of media from one device to another device for rendering. The difference is in the degree of support for these scenarios in common deployments of existing underlying protocols (such as UPnP). For proposed use cases such as issue-28 there is unquestionably existing protocol support widely deployed. By contrast, as explained earlier emails, this seems less certain for "TV Control". The device that is rendering/playing the media content may also be directly receiving it (such as from live broadcast transmissions) and may be incapable of streaming that content from/to other devices. The two are, from a media streaming/transfer perspective, inseparable. In earlier discussions, various other TF participants have indicated at least some degree of support for these scenarios through UPnP services [4] e.g. content directory services listing broadcast tuner programmes, and control of media rendering attributes such as volume. Even if some aspects are not supported now, of course, UPnP, or other future protocols, could be extended or devices to fill these gaps. There seems to be consensus that this TF will almost certainly recommend generic discovery APIs and some form of generic access APIs for underlying protocols (such as UPnP). It is less certain whether there may also be recommendations to create slightly higher level APIs to abstract functions for media streaming, playback etc - as listed in issues 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. My understanding is that this is an open possibility. Do we consider it worth capturing use cases that describe the types of tasks that need to be supportable in such a higher level API? If we do then the "TV Control" should be retained as an independent issue. If, for example, such an API leans on a 3-box model architecture, it should be able to support scenarios where 2 of those boxes (server and renderer) may be inseparable as described. I can rework the use-case to focus on a likely chain of events/method invocations, more closely matching the other issues, such as 26-30. If the TF considers recommendations regarding higher level APIs outside of its remit, then the "TV Control" use case would seem to be out of scope of this TF's work, and I would therefore withdraw it. regards Matt [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TVControl [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/ServiceUI [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/HomeNetworkUA_MediaController [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Apr/0036.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Apr/0068.html -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 21:56:46 UTC