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

[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Minutes of TF call 2011-05-03

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 20:12:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4DC0459A.7050908@w3.org>
To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hi,

The minutes of today's TF call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html

... and copied as raw text below.

Resolved during the call:
- approve discovered content host use case and close issue-5
- approve 3-Box Model use case and close ISSUE-10
- a few actions on Jean-Claude to clarify other use cases (ISSUE-6, ISSUE-7, ISSUE-8)
- action on Russell to propose an extension to ISSUE-4

See tracker for description of issues at stake:
  http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/

We'll run a short questionnaire for next call as Giuseppe is not available to chair the call on 17 May.

Thanks,
Francois.


-----
03 May 2011

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Agenda_Telco_3rd_May_2011

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Russell, ChristianSoderstrom, PanuMarkkanen, MarkVickers,
           Kazuyuki, Giuseppe, Francois, Hiroyuki_Aizu, NarmGadiraju,
           jcdufourd, ClarkeStevens, DongHyun

    Regrets
    Chair
           Giuseppe

    Scribe
           francois

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Requirements document
          2. [6]Discovered Content Host Use Case (ISSUE-5)
          3. [7]Service User Interface Use Case (ISSUE-4)
          4. [8]Service Provider Use Case (ISSUE-6)
          5. [9]Service Migration Use Case (ISSUE-7)
          6. [10]Service Distribution Use Case (ISSUE-8)
          7. [11]3-Box Model Use Case (ISSUE-10)
          8. [12]F2F
      * [13]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    giuseppe: reviewing the agenda. Going through the requirements, then
    the open issues to see what we can finalize.
    ... Also the issue on listing services raised by Jan last time.
    ... Any other point to the agenda?

    russell: agenda item on F2F?

    giuseppe: ok.

Requirements document

    <giuseppep>
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requireme
    nts

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements

    giuseppe: starts with common text, abstract and introduction. Let me
    know if you have comments there. Then use cases and requirements.
    ... As soon as we start approving use cases, we can capture them in
    this document.
    ... After we are done with use cases, we can start extract
    requirements for these use cases.
    ... One of the section in requirements will of course be security
    and privacy.
    ... I looked at other requirements documents (e.g. Audio XG) to
    build this one.

    russell: Question on associating tracker numbers.
    ... to mention them in the template

    giuseppe: they may not start from 1.
    ... I'm not sure we need to keep track on that.
    ... The background discussion will be tracker on the Wiki. This
    document will be converted to a pure HTML document in the end.
    ... The results of the discussion should be captured in this
    document.

    russell: so this will be the index of use cases?

    giuseppe: of approved use cases, yes.
    ... other comments and discussions will be useful to provide context
    and clarifications but do not need to appear in this document

    russell: ok.

    giuseppe: pretty similar to what other groups are doing.

    kaz: Wanted to mention there's some tool to convert tracker issues
    into nice HTML pages. If needed, we can use that as well.

    giuseppe: not sure what the output will look like. Can you share a
    link?

    kaz: Many working groups use Tracker to handle last call comments.
    When that happens, we need to generate a disposition of comments.
    ... I'll share a link to an example.

    giuseppe: ok.
    ... If no other points, let's go on and have a look at use cases.

    <inserted> -> [15]example of an HTML document generated by Tracker
    DB

      [15] http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/CallControl/ccxml-2005-editorscopy/CCXML-DoC.html

Discovered Content Host Use Case (ISSUE-5)

    <giuseppep>
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
    ns/DiscoveredContentHost

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

    jcd: very basic thing.

    giuseppe: are there any comment on the use case?
    ... If not, we can just accept it

    russell: [sound chopped]
    ... What is the tracker number for the use case?

    ISSUE-5?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- Use Case: Discovered Content Host -- raised

    <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/5

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/5

    <jcdufourd>
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
    ns/DiscoveredContentHost

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/DiscoveredContentHost

    giuseppe: number 5
    ... Any comment on this?

    kaz: meta comment. We should add a link back to tracker from the
    wiki

    giuseppe: Right. I did it for some issues.

    <kaz> [ just updated
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
    ns/DiscoveredContentHost#ISSUE-5:_Discovered_content_host ]

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/DiscoveredContentHost#ISSUE-5:_Discovered_content_host

    PROPOSED RESOLUTION: approve discovered content host and close
    issue-5

    PROPOSED RESOLUTION: approve discovered content host use case and
    close issue-5

    kaz: From a user viewpoint this may be too detailed a description.

    giuseppe: I think this is enough to capture this kind of use cases,
    but do not have strong opinion.

    kaz: maybe later we'll need to classify the types of use cases.

    giuseppe: yes, we can do it later.

    +1 to close ISSUE-5

    RESOLUTION: approve discovered content host use case and close
    issue-5

    close ISSUE-5

    <trackbot> ISSUE-5 Use Case: Discovered Content Host closed

Service User Interface Use Case (ISSUE-4)

    <giuseppep> ISSUE-4?

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

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/4

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

    jcd: a bit more complex. It's about the service and the network
    remotely having a user interface as a document somewhere else.

    <rberkoff> r berkoff comments posted on tracker - please cover!

    jcd: [jcd going through use case description]

    <kaz> [ just updated
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
    ns/DiscoveredContentHost#Discovered_content_host to use the same
    format as ISSUE-4 wiki ]

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/DiscoveredContentHost#Discovered_content_host

    giuseppe: comments?
    ... Russell, your comment is that you'll propose a more detailed use
    case.
    ... Do you have a deadline?
    ... Do you want a clarification of the text or an extension?

    russell: by next call, and more an extension.

    giuseppe: ok, any other comments?

    <scribe> ACTION: Russell to propose an extension of ISSUE-4 by
    2011-05-17 [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Propose an extension of ISSUE-4 by
    2011-05-17 [on Russell Berkoff - due 2011-05-10].

    jcd: is there a difference you can talk about already or not?

    russell: let me review this use case again, having problems with
    this toolset.

    giuseppe: ok, let's postpone ISSUE-4 for now.
    ... We'll go through it next call or approve it offline.

Service Provider Use Case (ISSUE-6)

    <giuseppep> ISSUE-6?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-6 -- Use Case: Document as a Service Provider --
    raised

    <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/6

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/6

    <kaz> [ just updated
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
    ns/ServiceProvider#Service_Provider with link to issue-6 ]

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/ServiceProvider#Service_Provider

    jcd: there, you have a document as a provider of a service. A
    particular machine access to something. For example, the machine is
    a TV set with Programme guide information. That information can be
    displayed on the TV, but there's no interface to display it on other
    devices.
    ... So a document running on the TV set could expose a service and
    provide the programme guide information to other devices.
    ... The way I describe it, the document is a windowless object that
    responds to other requests.
    ... The document needs to be able to advertize itself, publish its
    interface, and then respond to messages from elsewhere.
    ... 3 functions.

    giuseppe: one comment on this. I'm not sure if two documents talking
    to each other is the same thing as this use case as you suggest.
    ... Two documents talking to each other is already possible.
    ... This use case is more complex than that.
    ... If the intent is more to post messages, then it would be better
    to rephrase it.

    jcd: the last part "respond to messages" is indeed posting messages
    when documents are pages. But the first two parts are not.
    ... A document may need to expose itself.
    ... Here publishing its interface means exposing the list of
    messages that the document can respond to.

    giuseppe: my first comment would be to split this, because we might
    want to assign different priorities to different things.
    ... One thing that is missing is the justification for this.
    Exposing services is already covered by Web services in my view.
    ... So, what's missing?
    ... Exchanging messages between two documents in two different
    browsers on two different devices is missing, for instance.

    russell: [question on relation between use case and UPnP]
    ... I have the feeling that what is described here is outside of
    regular UPnP usage

    giuseppe: so basically, the implementation part is not good here.

    jcd: Basically, everything in there is implemented in UPnP and is
    interoperable with other possibilities. So I suspect that my
    language is in cause here. The first time that the TV set exposes
    itself as a device. It does that but in the background, exposing the
    service within the device.
    ... I felt this was too UPnP specific to fit in this document.

    russell: [comment on UPnP process scribe missed]

    giuseppe: In the end, do we need to remove something from the use
    case? The possible implementation part for instance?

    <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to wonder if we have to mention HbbTV
    specifically here

    <scribe> ACTION: Jean-Claude to clarify in the text of ISSUE-6 that
    the document is acting as a device and split in more atomic use
    cases [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Clarify in the text of ISSUE-6 that
    the document is acting as a device and split in more atomic use
    cases [on Jean-Claude Dufourd - due 2011-05-10].

    kaz: In description section, you should probably describe the use
    case without mentioning existing solution such as HbbTV or UPnP.

    <giuseppep>
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/index.php?title=HNTF%2FHome_Ne
    twork_TF_Discussions%2FServiceProvider%2Fcomment_gp1&diff=323&oldid=
    322

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/index.php?title=HNTF%2FHome_Network_TF_Discussions%2FServiceProvider%2Fcomment_gp1&diff=323&oldid=322

    giuseppe: In general, we should avoid having any reference to
    existing technologies, unless that's really part of the use case.
    ... I agree that it should be re-written into something that is more
    neutral.
    ... ok, so action on Jean-Claude and then we can discuss it again

Service Migration Use Case (ISSUE-7)

    <giuseppep> ISSUE-7?

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

    <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/7

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

    jcd: document exposing a service and a document moving across
    devices. I think that the title is very bad actually.
    ... It's actually a document rendering discovered content, e.g.
    media content. You want to move the document when a bigger device
    becomes available (e.g. a tablet).
    ... You want a seamless migration.
    ... One implementation is through a regular server. If you don't
    have a server, the second possibility is to put the intelligence on
    the page itself.
    ... When you want to migrate from the phone to the tablet, the page
    saves its state and transfers the content and the state to the other
    device.

    giuseppe: there was a discussion on this on the mailing-list and I
    also had a comment.

    <giuseppep>
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/index.php?title=HNTF%2FHome_Ne
    twork_TF_Discussions%2FServiceMigration%2Fcomments_gp1&diff=327&oldi
    d=326

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/index.php?title=HNTF%2FHome_Network_TF_Discussions%2FServiceMigration%2Fcomments_gp1&diff=327&oldid=326

    giuseppe: I think it's more appropriate to talk about services
    migration

    jcd: the text describes document moving and the title describes what
    you're suggesting. Document moving is a simpler case.
    ... This use case should also be split into: document that moves
    around and there's no service in the UPnP sense, and then "service"
    moving which is more complex than the previous one.

    giuseppe: in this case, it's more content moving between HTML pages
    (video).

    jcd: if there is a state, the simplest state I can think of being
    the position in a movie, you have to pass it around.

    giuseppe: right, I guess you have to think about cookies as well.

    russell: I think I understand the scenario here.
    ... It involves an intermediary Web server.

    giuseppe: it's one possible implementation, I think.

    russell: I can share a link to the spec in CEA where this is
    described.

    giuseppe: ok, I think I'm fine with the use case then.

    jcd: would you like me to split it into document migration and
    service migration?

    <scribe> ACTION: Jean-Claude to split ISSUE-7 into document
    migration and service migration [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Split ISSUE-7 into document migration
    and service migration [on Jean-Claude Dufourd - due 2011-05-10].

    kaz: maybe your description implies multiple state transition that
    includes several states each of them corresponds to a specific
    device

    jcd: that's an interesting suggestion. I need to think about it.

    giuseppe: ok, we'll get back to it next time then.

Service Distribution Use Case (ISSUE-8)

    <giuseppep> ISSUE-8?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-8 -- Use case: Service Distribution -- raised

    <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/8

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/8

    jcd: Voting system on the TV set. Multiple viewers in front of TV.
    Today, we have to use the remote control and there's only one.
    Whereas viewers are likely to have personal phones.
    ... So, the TV set sends a message to the phones and suggests to
    activate a second document.
    ... The second document arrives and runs on the phone (with user's
    approval)
    ... Then the document running on the TV set exposes itself as a
    service and the document running on the phones discovers it (or the
    opposite).

    <kaz> [ just updated
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
    ns/ServiceDistribution#Service_Distribution with Issue ID ]

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/ServiceDistribution#Service_Distribution

    jcd: The user browses the document on his phone. Once he votes, a
    message is sent to the TV set and the document on the TV set
    collects the votes and submits the votes.
    ... This use case suggests that a document gets suggested by the TV
    set to other devices

    giuseppe: Apart from the editorial comment to reword without
    specific reference to HbbTV, I think we should highlight the
    difference between this use case and the other ones.

    jcd: if you just have a standard for discovery, then you cannot do
    this.
    ... What you would need is something at a different level: you need
    a standard distribution mechanism.
    ... Besides, the devices should expose themselves as possible
    receivers.

    giuseppe: I'd like to discuss offline what other use cases this use
    case depends on.

    jcd: OK, I can clarify a bit the dependencies and highlight the
    difference.

    kaz: this use case is very much like "second screen" use case. If
    this means second-screen use case it's probably fine to have them
    here. Then we can classify requirements later on.

    giuseppe: ok, we'll come back to it.

    <scribe> ACTION: Jean-Claude to clarify dependencies and differences
    on ISSUE-8 [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Clarify dependencies and differences
    on ISSUE-8 [on Jean-Claude Dufourd - due 2011-05-10].

3-Box Model Use Case (ISSUE-10)

    ISSUE-10?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- 3-Box Model -- raised

    <trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/10

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/10

    clarke: not sure that this is different enough from what Jean-Claude
    already proposed. This is the 3-box model used in DLNA.
    ... It describes connections between the different devices.
    ... I think it's similar to the Jean-Claude's Service User Interface
    but not sure it covers it all.

    giuseppe: it makes sense to keep it as a separate use case.
    ... This one is more complex, Jean-Claude's one is more the 2-Box
    model.
    ... do we need more time to approve it?

    kaz: does this imply more than 3?

    clarke: I suppose you could send content to multiple renderers
    simultaneously. That's one possibility. But 3-Box is the minimum.

    PROPOSED RESOLUTION: approve 3-Box Model use case and close ISSUE-10

    +1

    RESOLUTION: approve 3-Box Model use case and close ISSUE-10

    <kaz> [ just added link to tracker to
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
    ns/3-box-model#3-Box_Model ]

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/3-box-model#3-Box_Model

    close ISSUE-10

    <trackbot> ISSUE-10 3-Box Model closed

    giuseppe: I'll add it to the Requirements document, then.
    ... I'm not sure we have time to go through remaining issues and
    security concerns.
    ... I'd like to ask people to take some more time and comment on
    this.
    ... We have to have some security and privacy requirements in this
    document.
    ... Let's continue discussing on the mailing-list

F2F

    giuseppe: for the home network TF, there's a proposal from Samsung
    to host a F2F in June

    <giuseppep>
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
    ns/FaceToFaceSchedule_2011

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/FaceToFaceSchedule_2011

    <giuseppep> Proposed: HNTF-F2F 14-16 June 2011 - Samsung Electronics
    - (USA) San Jose, CA (*updated*)

    [several "ok" heard in the call]

    giuseppe: if there's no objection within a week, we can consider it
    approved.
    ... we're still discussing on the workshop, it probably won't be
    before September.
    ... Anything else to discuss?
    ... Basically, we'll go over open issues in these calls. Next time,
    we'll just go by number. So raise an issue if you want to discuss
    something.
    ... Next call on the 17th but I'm not available.
    ... Can we move it?
    ... Either to next week or 24th?

    russell: A short questionnaire to settle this?

    giuseppe: yes, we can do this.
    ... We'll decide on this during this week.
    ... AOB?

    [Call adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: jcd to clarify in the text of ISSUE-6 that the
    document is acting as a device and split in more atomic use cases
    [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jean-Claude to clarify dependencies and differences on
    ISSUE-8 [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jean-Claude to clarify in the text of ISSUE-6 that the
    document is acting as a device and split in more atomic use cases
    [recorded in
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jean-Claude to split ISSUE-7 into document migration
    and service migration [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Russell to propose an extension of ISSUE-4 by
    2011-05-17 [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/03-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 18:13:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:05 UTC