Re: [apis] Gap analysis and NSD

for the record: I'll not be able to attend todays call but I'm putting some
comments and an additional column in the document. I would appreciate if
you can look at them (if any of them is not clear, you can skip it, but
some are easy to address)


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>wrote:

> good work, I would encourage others to provide their input on that table.
>
> @Daniel
> I've added some colors to your cells to make it easier to see the
> covered/not covered/undefined
>
> @TF moderators
> is this table linked from the wiki? if not, would you mind adding a link
> to it  somewhere?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for this, Giuseppe.
>>
>> I've indicated what I think the NSD API covers in our spreadsheet:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE#gid=1
>>
>> ✓ = covered
>> ⨯ = not covered, could be added
>> (blank) = not applicable
>>
>> I've also added columns for what I think are relevant specs for the
>> whole gap analysis. We can change or delete them as necessary.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 05/10/13 17:20, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > as discussed during last Media APIs TF call, we are now moving on to the
>> > next (final) phase of our work for the current iteration: the gap
>> analysis.
>> >
>> > In this phase, we need to analyse existing specs and see if there are
>> > technologies that already satisfy the requirements we have listed in [1]
>> > (extracted from the use cases in [2])
>> >
>> > So there is an action point on each TF member to come up with suggestion
>> > of which specs can be used to address our requirements or which specs
>> > would need to be "extended" in order to meet our requirements. Please
>> > send an email to this list including:
>> >
>> > 1. requirement
>> > 2. related spec
>> > 3. identified gaps (if any)
>> >
>> > Since we have already mentioned the NSD spec [3] few times, I would like
>> > to ask people to start reviewing it (as also requested by the DAP group)
>> > and provide feedback on if such spec address the identified requirements
>> > on service/device discovery, and if not, why. (I'll provide my comments
>> > on this in a separate mail)
>> >
>> > /g
>> >
>> > P.S. During the call we decided to try to get feedback on a voluntary
>> > base, but if nobody volunteers we may need to fall back on assigning
>> > each requirement to one TF member during next call ;)
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements
>> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases
>> > [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/discovery-api/Overview.html
>>
>>
>