- From: Jan Lindquist <jan.lindquist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:55:18 +0200
- To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, "Igarashi, Tatsuya" <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com>, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, Web and TV Interest Group WG <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Enabling communication between 2 applications is a valid use case. We may not need to focus on the actual syntax of the communication or services. The focus is on how 2 applications running on two different devices can disocover each other and establish communication using webSocket. The services over the socket can be considered independent or second stage. /JanL -----Original Message----- From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Giuseppe Pascale Sent: den 21 juni 2011 15:22 To: Igarashi, Tatsuya; Scott Wilson; Web and TV Interest Group WG; Matt Hammond; Mark Watson Subject: Re: webtv-ISSUE-24 (igarashi): Local Link of web applications [HOME_NETWORK_TF] On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:40:45 +0200, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > This is an interesting issue, but I would say that it is essential to > distinguish connectivity from application protocols. > > Establishing connectivity between applications is one thing. There are > problems here of application discovery over the local network, > security and connection establishment that will need to be addressed. > > The actual protocol which is then used over this connection is a > totally orthogonal concept. It's application-specific and those > application protocols may be used in other contexts as well (for > example, the smart phone quiz app might use the same quiz protocol to > interact with the quiz app on the TV as it would use to interact with > the broadcaster's servers, in the case that the TV does not support that quiz app). > > I'm not saying that the group should not work on both - though I'd be > skeptical about standardizing a universal quiz protocol - but they > should certainly be handled separately. > Agree and in fact I don't think the use cases is suggesting this (but Matt can confirm). In general we seems to have 2 general use cases: - communicate with services using existing and established protocols (UPnP, Bonjour, etc) - enable communication between 2 applications with a "proprietary" protocol Both are of interest, The challenge here is we can identify a common architecture to cover both. On top of this some specific services/usecases may suggest the creation of a more specific API/protocol well integrated in the web platform while some other (like the quiz example) nwill probably never require an ad hoc solution. My proposed way forward is to start the first part (general framework) leaving the discussion on add hoc protocols/APIs for specific services as a second stage discussion. /g > ...Mark > > On Jun 21, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Matt Hammond wrote: > >> Hi, I have attempted to reformulate the 'quiz' use case as you >> suggested: >> >> """ >> User Scenario: Interactive quiz >> >> Alice and Bob operates the TV device to watch a quiz programme, from >> live broadcast. >> >> Alice and Bob also operate their smart phones to access a quiz >> application. >> >> The smart phone quiz application knows that the quiz programme is >> being watched on the TV and establishes communication with an >> interactive application on the TV that is active during the quiz programme. >> >> The TV application overlays on-screen information informing Alice and >> Bob that they are now taking part in the quiz. >> >> As a question is asked in the quiz programme, the interactive TV >> application instructs Alice and Bob's smart phone quiz applications >> to ask Alice and Bob the same questions. Alice and Bob enter answers >> to the questions using their smart phones, which are relayed back to >> the interactive TV application. >> >> Between quiz rounds, Alice and Bob's scores are displayed on their >> smart phones and overlayed on screen by the TV interactive >> application. Scores are compared to those of the contestants featuring in the programme. >> """ >> >> Regarding need/justification: Using local-link communication to an >> interactive application provided as part of a broadcast stream >> provides a way around scalability concerns if participation is >> substantial for a particularly popular programme. >> >> >> regards >> >> >> Matt >> >> >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 06:12:35 +0100, Igarashi, Tatsuya >> <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Matt and Scott, >>> >>> I am happy to include more user scenarios in the use case description. >>> (I meant "use case" as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case ) >>> >>> Would you re-write it as a scenario from user perspective? This >>> makes us easy to understand. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Scott Wilson [mailto:scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:06 PM >>>> To: Matt Hammond >>>> Cc: Web and TV Interest Group WG; Igarashi, Tatsuya >>>> Subject: Re: webtv-ISSUE-24 (igarashi): Local Link of web >>>> applications [HOME_NETWORK_TF] >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 Jun 2011, at 14:29, Matt Hammond wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This is an interesting use case and set of scenarios. I believe it >>>> will >>>> be important to enable communications between interactive >>>> services/applcations on a TV and other devices in a manner perhaps >>>> along the lines you suggest. >>>>> >>>>> I have an old-style use case that perhaps could be incorporated >>>>> into >>>> your >>>> list of scenarios (with a little rewriting): >>>> >>>> I quite like these old-style use-cases as they make a lot more >>>> sense when explaining what we are trying to achieve. >>>> >>>> Quiz programmes are one example, as are competition shows of the >>>> "-idol" >>>> variety - though today many of these make use of text >>>> messaging/telephony charges for their business model, and so to >>>> replace this functionality with web APIs would also require either >>>> access to micropayment functionality, or a bridge from TV to telco >>>> services. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> """ >>>>> Scenario: enabling interaction between companion content and >>>> television >>>> interactive services >>>>> >>>>> One or more companion devices can communicate with an interactive >>>> widget, >>>> application or service on the television. For example: a quiz >>>> programme may feature an interactive service to allow users to play >>>> along. Users each use their own individual companion device to >>>> participate in the quiz, in time with the programme as broadcast. >>>> As the programme progresses, questions are presented to the users >>>> on their companion device at the same time as the contestant in the >>>> programme has to answer them. Scores are compared and collated on >>>> the television screen at points throughout the quiz. >>>>> """ >>>>> >>>>> There may be some overlap between this and issue-4 or issue-12; >>>> however >>>> I believe there is probably a difference, since the scenarios focus >>>> on applications spread across several devices working together, >>>> rather than migration, or the wholesale remoting of a UI. >>>>> >>>>> From our perspective at the BBC, it would be great if the scope is >>>> widened >>>> such that one of the applications may not necessarily be a web >>>> application but which still, in some way, exposes a service with >>>> which web applications could communicate. In the UK for example, >>>> interactive applications delivered as part of the TV broadcast on >>>> many of the platforms these will not be web based for the forseable >>>> future. >>>> >>>> I think being able to support the migration of current "red button" >>>> interactive content to the open web and web applications/widgets is >>>> an excellent objective to work towards. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:11:28 +0100, Igarashi, Tatsuya >>>> <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for the bad link. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the correct link to the use case description. >>>>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/ >>>> Loc alLink#Use_Case:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org >>>>>>> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Web and >>>>>>> TV >>>> Interest >>>>>>> Group Issue Tracker >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:05 PM >>>>>>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org >>>>>>> Subject: webtv-ISSUE-24 (igarashi): Local Link of web >>>>>>> applications [HOME_NETWORK_TF] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> webtv-ISSUE-24 (igarashi): Local Link of web applications >>>>>>> [HOME_NETWORK_TF] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Raised by: Tatsuya Igarashi >>>>>>> On product: HOME_NETWORK_TF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a proposal about the use case "Local Link of web >>>> applications". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> | Matt Hammond >>>>> | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London >>>>> | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> | Matt Hammond >> | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London >> | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ >> >> > -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 13:56:00 UTC