[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Minutes - 12 July 2011

available at:

also as text below.

BTW, I think we need to finalize ISSUE-24 as well, though I said our
topics for the next week would be Russel's issues and Matt's issues.
Sorry I was unclear.

Giuseppe will come back and moderate the call (as I mentioned at the
end of the call :)




       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                    Home Networking TF Teleconference

12 Jul 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0023.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/12-webtv-irc


           Kazuyuki, MattH, Aizu, Tatsuya_Igarashi, david_mays,
           Jerry_Ezrol, Jean-Claude, Jan




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]How to handle additional use case descriptions?
          2. [6]Use cases
      * [7]Summary of Action Items

How to handle additional use case descriptions?

    kaz: two proposals: 1. API category, 2. concrete system interaction
    ... let's talk about "API category"
    ... could this an optional feature?

    igarashi: it would be useful to have this feature when we identify
    use cases for requirement document

    kaz: old use cases are already approved

    igarashi: I'd suggest we ask old use case submitters as well to
    clarify the type

    kaz: in that case, we need to clarify the definition of
    service-agnostic and service-specific

    <jcdufourd> ack

    kaz: I think service-agnostic is "generic" and service-specific is
    "application-specific" we discussed before

    jc: agree
    ... but not sure about the third type

    igarashi: type3 is combination of type1 and type2
    ... in addition to generic APIs and application-specific documents
    (like application-specific XML language)
    ... e.g., generic XMLHTTPRequest and additional application-specific
    XML language

    <MattH> +q

    <MattH> +q

    kaz: does type3 include DeviceAPI and HTML5 script?

    igarashi: no
    ... e.g., the URI of the "application-specific" document is one of
    the parameters of the generic API

    MattH: quick question
    ... do any of existing use cases match this type 3?

    igarashi: no idea
    ... it's that there are theoretically three options

    MattH: ok

    <MattH> -q

    igarashi: however, I think this kind of "type of use cases" should
    be considered for the discussion in the possible WGs

    RESOLUTION: we add Igarashi's proposed "type of use cases" to our
    use case description (and template)

    kaz: next Russell's proposal

    3.html agenda

       [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0023.html

    kaz: how about discussing th concrete system interaction later?

    <igarashi_> I will resume soon.

    <rberkoff> what ever is decided should be applied uniformly to use
    cases or not at all

    <rberkoff> then we shouldnt require it!

    <rberkoff> no!

    RESOLUTION: We should not require detaliked system interaction
    description for use cases description

    MattH: is considering system interaction important in order to
    express desired attributes of solutions?

    berkoff: no. It is desired in order to detect issues with proposed
    use cases.

Use cases


    <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Local Link of web applications -- raised

    <trackbot> [9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24

    ns/LocalLink#Use_Case:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications Wiki

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/LocalLink#Use_Case:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications

    igarashi: have some issue with separating user scenarios
    ... though Francois suggested I should have separated it
    ... also he pointed out to clarify the relationship with the other
    use cases
    ... issue-24 describes bi-directional communication

    kaz: do you think it's impossible?

    igarashi: no, but User Scenario is not the main body of the Use Case
    but just example

    <MattH> +q

    kaz: maybe we should clarify the definition of "User Scenario"

    igarashi: if those User Scenarios are three application-specific
    examples, I'm happy to separate them
    ... but there is no significant difference
    ... there is only one system interaction

    ack Matt?

    MattH: think we've clarified "User Scenario" and "Use Case"

    kaz: we should follow the definition

    (kaz will check the definition to make sure.)

    RESOLUTION: three examples could be included in ISSUE-24

    kaz: next week we'll talk about:
    - Russell Berkoff's use case: ISSUE-17 (split into ISSUE-23,
    ISSUE-26, ISSUE-27, ISSUE-28, ISSUE-29, ISSUE-30)
    - Matt Hammond: ISSUE-19, ISSUE-20, ISSUE-21, ISSUE-22

    kaz: sorry, but we need to finalize ISSUE-24 as well

    kaz: Giuseppe will come back and moderate the call

    [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [11]scribe.perl version 1.136
     ([12]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/07/12 15:05:44 $

      [11] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170

Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 17:22:12 UTC