RE: ISSUE-24 - Application IDs

Hi Russell,

From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Russell Berkoff
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:24 PM
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: ISSUE-24 - Application IDs

Hello Igarashi-san,

I think I have an issue with application-ids and private application interfaces as implied in ISSUE-24 and your clarifications.


1.     Who is the registrar for these applications IDs? Even if the ID is (automatically) derived from a MD-5 fingerprint of the interface description, the semantics may differ between device implementation even if the method and parameter types for the interface are identical.
(igarashi) Application ID should be unique but no registration is required. The format of the application IDs should be standardized. They are requirements. As a solution, MD-5 fingerprint meets the requirements.  URI(RFC 3986<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986> ) as well.


2.     How are application specific (private) interfaces helpful to general interoperability. Sure I can write proprietary Sony Device and have Sony specific applications to communicate with it? Is that approach generally helpful?
(igarashi) Generally, an web application is provided by the service provide . The communication between them are private. It is the general interoperability model on web applications. In addition, the communication, i.e. web APIs, could be open to the other vendors and service-mash up can be realized. I am thinking of the same echo system. Obviously, W3C or other SDOs/forums may define a standard of application specific document schema using the framework to ensure the interoperability between web applications which provided by difference vendors as a kind of de-jure standard.  Also, de-fact standard interfaces would be popular as the result of competitions in the echo system. To standardize the framework to enable the local link communications between web applications would be beneficial to the echo system, I think.

UPnP has taken the approach of defining applications APIs that are expected to be supported across vendors with clearly stated semantics and syntax. It doesn't sound that ISSUE-24 is following that model and that design choice  seems problematic.

Each forum has a different policy.  I have a slightly different view on UPnP, but DLNA is more strict on the interoperability among vendors because of its mission. It would be reasonable for W3C to define such framework of communications for web applications.

Regards,
Russell Berkoff
Samsung


-***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***--***---***---***-
Tatsuya Igarashi　(Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com<mailto:Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com>)
NS Development Dept. Technology Development Group
Sony Corporation
(Voice) +81-3-5435-3252　(Fax) +81-3-5435-3274