- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 03:31:06 +0900
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
available at: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webtv-minutes.html Also as text below. The next call will be May 31. Regarding how to join the call, please see also the Web&TV IG public wiki at: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Telco BTW, some participants mentioned on the IG list [1] that they preferred 13UTC instead as the TF call slot. So I'd suggest we talk about that as well if they still want to change the slot. As one of the Asian participants, I also prefer 13UTC, though :) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011May/thread.html#msg28 Thanks, Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Home Networking Task Force Teleconference 24 May 2011 [2]Agenda [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Agenda_Telco_24th_May_2011 See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-webtv-irc Attendees Present Kazuyuki, Mark_Vickers, Francois, JanLindquist, DongHyun_Kang, +82.10.26.09.aabb, Matt_Hammond, Tatsuya_Igarashi, Giuseppe, Aizu, MattH, Clarke, Russel, David_Corvoysier, Panu_Markkanen Regrets JeanClaude Chair Giuseppe Scribe Kaz Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]requirements document 2. [6]definition section 3. [7]open actions * [8]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ <giuseppep> francois are you online? <giuseppep> actions? <giuseppep> issues? <francois> Hi giuseppe, playing with RRSAgent? ;) <trackbot> Date: 24 May 2011 <scribe> scribe: Kaz <scribe> scribenick: kaz <giuseppep> [9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Agenda_Telco_24th_May_2011 [9] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Agenda_Telco_24th_May_2011 requirements document giuseppep: how to structure? ... one proposal is from Jan ... Jean-Claude provided high-level ones ... while Russel gave rather specific ones igarashi: agree with Jan ... details and high-level topics should be discussed separately giugeppep: tx Matt: use cases I proposed is application level <giuseppep> ack fd: adding actual scenario would be useful <rberkoff> cant dial-in??? giuseppep: would be useful to better understanding <rberkoff> no conf code was posted? giuseppep: let's continue giuseppe: (to Russel) ... we'll separate the use case document into two parts, generic part and specific part definition section giuseppep: people have different image for some terms ... is our description generic enough? ... opinion? Clarke: application is a good term ... another for home network would be service giuseppep: HTML5 type of definition of "document" might be confusing ... we could use "web application" as a term ... we need to clarify what "application" means clarke: can try fd: we prefer to use "application" ... rather than "document" ... I personally prefer "web application" ... if we use the same definition (as HTML5), it would be easy to map our use cases to HTML5 giuseppep: would suggest your definition to the ML and share your ideas with everybody [ +1 w/ giuseppep ] open actions <giuseppep> [10]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/2 [10] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/2 <giuseppep> [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio ns/ServiceMigration [11] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/ServiceMigration <giuseppep> issue-7? <trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- Use case: Service Migration -- open <trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/7 [12] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/7 giuseppep: Jean-Claude's use case ... "document" could describe "application" <inserted> giuseppep: this originally included two pieces, and another part is issue-15 <giuseppep> [13]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio ns/DocumentMigration [13] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/DocumentMigration issue-15? <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- Document Migration -- raised <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/15 [14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/15 kaz: regarding issue-7, the description is confusing ... "music" is rather capability/feature ... "device" should be Audio, TV, music player, computer, etc. giuseppep: agree the description is confusing jan: two questions ... 1 is example implementations ... 2 is that this is similar to multi-screen use case giuseppep: that's something "document migration" use case would capture russell: same concern as Kaz ... device capability like camera, etc. is captured by this "service migration"? ... how is application captured? giuseppep: "how" is not yet discussed russell: services use documents giuseppep: if your application use audio on some device which doesn't have audio capability, it doesn't work ... I proposed to JCD to rephrase the description MattH: concrete scenario would be useful to me <dcorvoysier> The way it is described, the web page itself seems to be transferred from one device to the other ... [ yeah... ] giuseppep: talking with radio could be one use case scenario <francois> [ The definition of "application state" looks very application specific and difficult to generalize. ] igarashi: relationship between 7 and 15 ... now got it ... second question is that this is not migration, but just using multiple devices giuseppep: "widget running on some device and an application on another device" might be what JCD is thinking <inserted> ... how do you move state from device to device? <Clarke> Migration seems to be service delivery with "multiple devices" with state <Clarke> With a video, for example, you could retain the playback position <giuseppep> ISSUE-16? <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- Web and Device Interworking -- raised <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/16 [15] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/16 jan: (explains the use case) [[ A personal device list available in the home is invoked on any web page and devices in the list can be used for consuming the contents on a web page, e.g. video clip on a page can be redirected to a TV or recorded on a network attached storage. ]] <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to suggest "state transition from one device to another" jan: you can see some example JavaScript scripts ... comments welcome giuseppep: any comments? -> [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011May/00 50.html Jan's message [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011May/0050.html giuseppep: people need some more time ... my comment is that more examples are needed jan: ok fd: difference between device and service? giuseppep: some use case differentiate device and service jan: different devices have different capability fd: do you need list of devices? ... maybe we can say "this service and that service work on a device" <mav_> that was clarke clarke: don't think PCs care about "what capability is working on which device" but devices themselves do care ... "service" is more appropriate to "devices" <francois> [yes, we could use both "device" and "service" in the use cases] clarke: not sure we have to have one specific word ... a "device" contains something <igarashi> +q giuseppep: UPnP like definition? ... use cases from user perspective MattH: user centric view vs. device centric view jan: how can we use the terms with technical consistency giuseppep: I can provide some initial idea, and you can provide comments igarashi: using "device" might be good ... but how to handle "service" on the Internet? giuseppep: it's important to have terms list to share people's views ... we'll use same terminology once we've got consensus <inserted> UPnP Home Network UA <giuseppep> ISSUE-17? <trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- Use Case: DLNA/UPnP Home Network Enabled User-Agent (Browser) -- raised <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/17 [17] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/17 giuseppep: more generic use case description would be better russell: reference to specific technology? ... can remove DLNA/UPnP giuseppep: this will go back to the previous discussion ... you need some generic framework to let devices interact with each other russell: ok. will restructure the description <igarashi> +q giuseppep: we've decided we'll split the use case documents into generic part and specific part, so you can say "we'd support this specific service" jan: several possible scenarios giuseppep: we could include both (1) list of generic use cases and (2) list of specific use cases <giuseppep> ? <inserted> ... you can generate another use case if you need jan: will restructure my use case igarashi: use cases should be use specific ... detailed procedure on each use case would be helpful for people to understand +q to suggest we have optional "concrete scenario" which includes detailed procedure on each use case description jan: if we adapt a specific use case, which includes user process steps, it would be fine <giuseppep> [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF [18] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF jan: btw, could you please send the conf code publicly? giuseppep: it's available on the Wiki page <giuseppep> [19]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Telco [19] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Telco jan: need info on IRC channel etc. as well giuseppep: also available on the Wiki page [ adjourned ] Summary of Action Items [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 18:32:47 UTC