[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Minutes - 26 July 2011

available at:

also as text below.



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

                                - DRAFT -

                   Home Networking Task Force Telconf

26 Jul 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0051.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/26-webtv-irc


           Kazuyuki, MattH, Jerry, Clarke, Igarashi, aizu, Narm,
           DongHyun, Richard, Bob

           Giuseppe, Francois




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]ISSUE-17
          2. [6]ISSUE-24
          3. [7]ISSUE-20
          4. [8]ISSUE-19
          5. [9]ISSUE-21
      * [10]Summary of Action Items



    <trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- Use Case: Home Network Enabled User-Agent --

    <trackbot> [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/17

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/17

    kaz: let's close this

    everyone: ok

    close issue-17

    <trackbot> ISSUE-17 Use Case: Home Network Enabled User-Agent closed



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

    <trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24

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

    46.html Igarashi's update

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0046.html

    igarashi: added description on API types
    ... issue-24 itself is a generic API

    ns/LocalLink#Use_Case:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications Wiki
    description of ISSUE-24

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

    kaz: is the wiki description also updated?

    igarashi: yes

    kaz: do you want to include the information on ISSUE-9 and Opera's
    API proposal in the wiki description as well?

    igarashi: no, it's just additional explanation on what "generic API"

    kaz: any opinion?
    ... if no objection, let's accept this proposal ISSUE-24

    RESOLUTION: accept ISSUE-24


    matt: would like to start with 20


    <trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- TV Querying and Control -- raised

    <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/20

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/20

    ns/TVControl Wiki description of ISSUE-20

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TVControl

    matt: restructured the issue
    ... possible interaction scenario is included
    ... JavaScript level API proposal for discussion as well

    matt: (describes the detail of the proposal)

    jerry: trying to understand
    ... target of the application which execute the API
    ... how to know where to execute APIs?
    ... home network devices could have a gateway
    ... server needs to know where to get the content from

    matt: the intention is implementing APIs as JavaScript and use from
    Web browsers
    ... what content is available where is an issue
    ... suppose DLNA terminology, media rendering device?

    jerry: I think what you're saying is a TV device

    matt: could be a TV device
    ... or a desktop browser

    jerry: target of the API is a processing engine that has capability
    ... being discovered by the browser
    ... and capable of executing the APIs
    ... and that can describe what devices are/

    igarashi: in this scenario, application is rather a device
    ... but application is running on devices

    matt: will update the text

    igarashi: this service-specific API is supported by the TV as well?

    matt: the API could be supported by TV if it can process JavaScript

    clarke: your suggestion is higher level API
    ... list of functions
    ... right?

    matt: yes

    igarashi: in scenario 1, there are several options
    ... maybe you should not use sequence number, but should use
    non-ordered list
    ... the first step "The application discovers..." should be done
    first, though

    matt: will change

    bob: a question
    ... level of APIs
    ... high-level APIs is useful
    ... but what level of APIs should be used?

    matt: there is ability for application

    bob: we started a high-level APIs within AT&T, and would like to
    know how to cover the other implementations
    ... need more sophisticated kind of APIs?

    matt: if you have information to share with me, would be appreciated

    bob: agree the trade-off
    ... but how much task is expected for a User Agent?
    ... clarke's paper will be soon available

    clarke: if we do something Bob suggested, i.e., lower-level APIs
    ... any preference from W3C viewpoint?

    kaz: both levels would be welcome and useful
    ... our proposals should go to the other WGs, e.g., DeviceAPIs and
    ... if they don't work very well for our proposals, we should create
    yet another WG :)

    <scribe> ACTION: matt to update issue-20 [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update issue-20 [on Matt Hammond -
    due 2011-08-02].

    igarashi: comment on scenario 2
    ... specific program?

    matt: question on step 2?

    igarashi: yes

    matt: list of content available could be provided
    ... and we could ask the TV which program is available now

    igarashi: ok

    kaz: igarashi, do you want clarification in scenario 2?

    igarashi: "application query" would be easier to understand?

    matt: will use the term



    <trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- Media Identification -- raised

    <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/19

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/19

    ns/MediaIdentification Wiki description of ISSUE-19

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/MediaIdentification

    matt: content identifier
    ... hopefully more clear
    ... related to part of issue-20

    kaz: do you think a specific URI could be used?

    matt: a URI is a possibility
    ... BBC would like to include URI style identifier
    ... some provider might use different kind of identifier on some

    kaz: can we accept this proposal?

    everybody: no objections

    RESOLUTION: ISSUE-19 is accepted



    <trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- Time synchronisation -- raised

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/21

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/21

    ns/TimeSynchronisation Wiki description of ISSUE-21

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TimeSynchronisation

    matt: have no time to update this...
    ... (explains the proposal)
    ... similar to issue-19, any high-level APIs could be supported
    rather than application-specific APIs

    kaz: you'll update the description, and we should talk about this
    next week?

    matt: yes

    kaz: no more proposals for today?

    matt: no

    kaz: any other topics?

    everybody: no

    kaz: ok. let's adjourn this call and talk with you all next week
    ... Giuseppe will be also available next week

    [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: matt to update issue-20 [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.136
     ([24]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/07/26 15:22:13 $

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

Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 15:30:20 UTC