RE: Use Cases & Underlying Technology

I agree. I think one of the main objectives of this effort (and the interest of the cable TV industry) is to leverage networked consumer electronics devices that are already in the market.

In my view, the implementation discussions are about what interface we use to communicate with those technologies. So far, I've heard two primary approaches: (1) provide a generic basic interface that has a string parameter with a SOAP or REST type command or (2) develop an interface with some higher-level abstraction (e.g. Select Content, Play, Pause, etc.) that would map to existing implementations (like UPnP or mDNS/DNS-SD). Both of these approaches would work with existing standards in widely deployed products.

We could consider "next new thing" ideas, but I think to the extent that they don't leverage existing home networking architectures, their interest should be secondary. This isn't particularly limiting as the existing architectures have a very extensive feature set.

Thanks,
-Clarke

From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Russell Berkoff
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:23 AM
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: Use Cases & Underlying Technology

Hello,

On the last HNTF call I believe that it was mentioned that use-cases and the corresponding  implementing technologies should be separate. I'd have substantial reservations over submitted Use Cases which do not appropriately utilize or require extensions to existing HN technologies.

I would suggest than any approved use-cases on the last call be review for the concern above.

While I don't want preclude the "next-new-thing" I think it should be incumbent on use-case submitters to either comply with existing available technologies or fully describe any new (or extension of existing) technologies within the submitted use-case.

Regards,
Russell Berkoff
Samsung