W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > June 2011

[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Minutes cal l 2011-06-28

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:32:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4E09F3FE.3010606@w3.org>
To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>

The minutes of today's call are available at:
... and copied as raw text below.

Migration scenarios were approved and closed (ISSUE-7, ISSUE-15 and ISSUE-25).

Discussions on whether to discuss low level vs. high level use cases, a.k.a. use cases vs. user scenarios, a.k.a. service agnostic vs. service specific use cases. I am to trigger more discussion on the mailing-list to reach a common understanding here.

Kaz will poll people here to check whether there will be a call next week.


Home Networking TF Teleconference

28 Jun 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jun/0176.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/28-webtv-irc


           Igarashi, Kazuyuki, francois, Richard_Bardini, Jerry_Ezrol,
           David_Mays, Aizu, Bob_Lund, jcdufourd, DongHyun_Kang,




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]ISSUE-7 - Service Migration
          2. [6]ISSUE-15, ISSUE-25 - Application push/pull Migration
          3. [7]ISSUE-20 - TV Querying and Control
          4. [8]ISSUE-24 - Local Link of Web applications
          5. [9]ISSUE-16 - Web and Device Interworking
          6. [10]ISSUE-19 - Media Identification
          7. [11]ISSUE-21, ISSUE-22 - Time Synchronization
          8. [12]ISSUE-17 (and derived) - Home Network Enabled
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    Starting with migration issues

ISSUE-7 - Service Migration

    <francois> ISSUE-7?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- Use case: Service Migration -- open

    <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/7

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/7

    <mav> Mark Vickers just joined.

    <francois> [15]Service Migration

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/ServiceMigration

    Proposal to close issue 7. Dependency update made by Jean-Claude.

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: accept and close ISSUE-7

    RESOLUTION: accept and close ISSUE-7

    <francois> close ISSUE-7

    <trackbot> ISSUE-7 Use case: Service Migration closed

ISSUE-15, ISSUE-25 - Application push/pull Migration

    <francois> ISSUE-15?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- Document Migration -- raised

    <trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/15

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

    <francois> ISSUE-25?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-25 -- Application Pull-Migration -- raised

    <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/25

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/25

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: accept and close ISSUE-15 and

    kaz: with their proposed titles?

    <francois> [two use cases: issue-15 is application push migration,
    issue-25 is application pull migration. Suggest to leave exact
    titles in use cases and requirements document as editorial

    RESOLUTION: accept and close ISSUE-15, accept and close ISSUE-25

    close ISSUE-15

    <trackbot> ISSUE-15 Document Migration closed

    close ISSUE-25

    <trackbot> ISSUE-25 Application Pull-Migration closed

ISSUE-20 - TV Querying and Control

    <francois> [skip in Matt's absence]

ISSUE-24 - Local Link of Web applications

    <francois> ISSUE-24?

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

    <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24

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

    <kaz> [19]Wiki description on ISSUE-24

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

    <kaz> igarashi: the above Wiki page describes several possible use
    cases as well as user scenarios

    <kaz> ... we need to have system analysis based on user scenarios

    <kaz> fd: yes. a use case and several user scenarios following that
    which describes the use case

    <francois> [20]Local Link

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/LocalLink

    <kaz> fd: issue-16 has overlap with this issue-24. Also if we
    consider the generic use case described here, there's some possible
    overlap with other issues, such as issue-4.

    <kaz> issue-16?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- Web and Device Interworking -- raised

    <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/16

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/16

    <kaz> fd: issue-16 may have to be merged with issue-24 if we keep
    the generic use case.

    <kaz> ... it's "Web and Device Interworking"

    <jcdufourd> here is a quote from ISSUE-4 (accepted)

    <jcdufourd> an interface to get a list of discovered services; an
    interface to get the list of messages exposed by a discovered
    service; an interface to send a message to a discovered service; an
    interface to set a listener for messages from a discovered service.

    <kaz> fd: issue-16 is user scenario rather than a use case in your

    <kaz> issue-4?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-4 -- Use Case: Service User Interface -- closed

    <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/4

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/4

    <kaz> igarashi: existing proposed use cases could be categoraized
    into two categories

    <kaz> ... generic ones and specific ones

    <kaz> ... service specific ones and service agnostic ones

    <kaz> fd: please clarify what this (issue-24) use case covers and
    what is not

    <kaz> igarashi: agree with Giuseppe that those user scenarios would
    be categorized into two

    <francois> [proposal would be to see is issue-24 is covered by other
    issues. If it is, next step could be to extract the user scenarios
    listed and list them as use cases, as they help precise

    <francois> igarashi: agree to create 3 issues based on user
    scenarios if that's what we want

    kaz: proposal to analyze if there is common system interaction
    between these use cases

    <scribe> ACTION: francois to continue discussion about issue-24 on
    mailing list [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Continue discussion on mailing list
    [on François Daoust - due 2011-07-05].

ISSUE-16 - Web and Device Interworking

    <francois> ISSUE-16?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- Web and Device Interworking -- raised

    <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/16

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/16

    <francois> [At the system interactions level, ISSUE-16 is covered by

    <scribe> ACTION: francois to also continue issue-16 on mailing list
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Also continue issue-16 on mailing
    list [on François Daoust - due 2011-07-05].

ISSUE-19 - Media Identification

    <francois> ISSUE-19?

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

    <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/19

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

    <francois> [propose to skip in Matt's absence]

ISSUE-21, ISSUE-22 - Time Synchronization

    francois: all remaining issues are from Matt and Russell who are not
    on the call today

ISSUE-17 (and derived) - Home Network Enabled User-Agent

    <francois> ISSUE-17?

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

    <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/17

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

    <francois> [ISSUE-17 got split into ISSUE-26, 27, 28, 29, 30]

    francois: happy about the split.
    ... any concerns here?

    clarke: I think those are important use cases. It goes with
    compatibility with existing devices that are out there.
    ... important objective of this group.

    jean-claude: discussed about the different levels, between the lower
    use cases already accepted, and higher use cases such as this one.

    clarke: you're saying we need to cover the use cases but may not
    need a specific API for each of these use cases, is that right?

    jcd: yes.

    mark: just to clarify, use cases will be prioritized afterwards,

    francois+kaz: yes.

    igarashi: if we talk about low level APIs, user scenarios do not
    have much meaning.

    francois: yes, precisely, but a low-level API is already a "possibly
    solution". At this stage, I think user scenarios are important to
    discuss and should be what compose the use cases and requirements.

    igarashi: thinks prioritizing use cases is important to clarify what
    kind/level of APIs are needed

    francois: please discuss on mailing list so we can just approve them
    next time
    ... kaz to host calls next two weeks if needed

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: francois to also continue issue-16 on mailing list
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: francois to continue discussion about issue-24 on
    mailing list [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 15:32:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:06 UTC