- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 18:09:36 +0200
- To: "Scott Wilson" <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org>, public-web-and-tv@w3.org, "Matt Hammond" <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
On Tue, 24 May 2011 18:02:26 +0200, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is one of the UCs covered by the WARP spec: > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ > > ...which would also allow for selective access to external network > resources - e.g. a second-screen Widget might principally connect to EPG > information from the primary screen device on the local network, but > also be granted external network access for specified origins (e.g. > IMDB). > yep, this is the spec I had in mind while making my comment :) I think widget access is a clean solution to one of the security concern we have for home networking, since the user(agent) can decide which level of network access the widget should be granted, and the widget can say to the user(agent) which level of network access he needs to work properly. /g >> >> /g >> >> >>> S >>> >>>> >>>> Francois. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> /g >>>>> >>>>>> Francois. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When it comes to the term application, what I meant is >>>>>>> "applications based on web technologies", that mostly mean web >>>>>>> apps served by a web server on internet, but is not limited to >>>>>>> that. >>>>>>> Another example of application I think are in scope are W3C >>>>>>> Widgets [1] that are defined as "interactive single purpose >>>>>>> application [...] packaged in a way to allow a single download and >>>>>>> installation on a user's machine or mobile device". Since calling >>>>>>> a Widget "web application" may be confusing, I would prefer to use >>>>>>> the word application and define the terms in the "Definitions" >>>>>>> section. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/UseCasesDualScreen >>>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Matt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:45:24 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale >>>>>>>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> this mail list several comments on all the open/closed >>>>>>>>> discussions so far. >>>>>>>>> Please take a look, I'll try to touch on this during tomorrow >>>>>>>>> call as well >>>>>>>>> but if you have any comment before that, feel free to reply. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** generic, use of word document ** >>>>>>>>> First of all a generic comment about the use of the word >>>>>>>>> "document". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All usecases are currently defined as "A document" doing >>>>>>>>> something. >>>>>>>>> This seems to create some confusion for some usecases where is >>>>>>>>> not clear >>>>>>>>> which resources are associated with the document and what is the >>>>>>>>> state of >>>>>>>>> the document. >>>>>>>>> I was wondering then if we should generalize and talk about "an >>>>>>>>> application" doing something. In this way we are more generic >>>>>>>>> and leave to >>>>>>>>> later specifications to define if the usecase can be implemented >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> extending the document or if additional mechanisms are needed >>>>>>>>> (e.g. a >>>>>>>>> concept of state) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So the Usecases U1 and U2 [1] (already approved) would be >>>>>>>>> rephrased as >>>>>>>>> follows: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> U1. Discovery Content Host >>>>>>>>> An __application__ as host for discovered content: e.g. an >>>>>>>>> __application__ >>>>>>>>> displays content provided by a local, discovered device or >>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> U2. 3-Box model >>>>>>>>> An __application__ can coordinate action between other services. >>>>>>>>> In the >>>>>>>>> most obvious example, an __application__ discovers media content >>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>> and media players. The __application__ allows the user to select >>>>>>>>> a source >>>>>>>>> and a player, then control playback (Play, pause, rewind, etc.) >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> content to the player. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Same applies to all open usecases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @JC, Clarke, >>>>>>>>> what do you this of this rephrasing? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** generic, motivation section ** >>>>>>>>> At the moment, each use case is supposed to contain a >>>>>>>>> Motivation: section >>>>>>>>> that should describe (among the other things) "Why were you not >>>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>>> use only existing standards to accomplish this?"; >>>>>>>>> I think nobody is really addressing this point. So either we add >>>>>>>>> this to >>>>>>>>> open and closed usecases or we drop the motivation section and >>>>>>>>> we include >>>>>>>>> any benefit to the ecosystem in the description (if needed) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think that for some usecases could make sense to underline why >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> cannot achieve that already with existing web standards. What do >>>>>>>>> people think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** Service User Interface (ISSUE-4) ** >>>>>>>>> Comments: >>>>>>>>> - change document into application >>>>>>>>> - do we need to distinguish between devices and services? Isn't >>>>>>>>> this too >>>>>>>>> UPnP specific? Is probably more generic to talk about "services" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A possible rephrasing: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An application interacting with a service; in this use case the >>>>>>>>> application provides a remote user interface for a service >>>>>>>>> available on >>>>>>>>> the network; some example are: light switch, hifi volume >>>>>>>>> control, radio >>>>>>>>> station chooser,remote control of a media player, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** Document Responding to Requests (ISSUE-13)** >>>>>>>>> Should we rephrase this as in "applications in the HN being able >>>>>>>>> to exchange messages"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** High level use cases VS specific use cases ** >>>>>>>>> At the moment we have some high level usecases that seems to >>>>>>>>> cover basically all possible scenarios (expose a service, >>>>>>>>> interact with a service, discover a service). >>>>>>>>> On the other end these seems to be a bit too high level and >>>>>>>>> someone infact proposed some more specific ones (see Jan and >>>>>>>>> Russell proposals). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So I'm wondering what is the best approach to cover both needs, >>>>>>>>> i.e. both describe some generic usecases and point to some more >>>>>>>>> specific services/usecases we want to be able to cover. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My proposal would be the following: we split the usecases >>>>>>>>> section in two: first we list some high level usecases (i.e. the >>>>>>>>> ones from Jean Claude) and then we go into some "sub use cases" >>>>>>>>> were we list some more specific usecases we want to cover. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another possible approach would be to just list as a plain list >>>>>>>>> both high level and low level usecases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do people think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /g >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Use_cases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Giuseppe Pascale >> TV & Connected Devices >> Opera Software - Sweden > -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 16:12:29 UTC