RE: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)

Dear Jean,

I am very sorry for giving you the wrong understanding.

I totally agree that we should support the existing UPnP device, but also believe it is very important that
the local service should provide the mechanism to provide their service w/o the detail knowledge.

UPnP is the local service. it requires us the detail control knowledge, but gives us the good operation.
The web service will control UPnP device. this is agree.

but also, we need the web intents concept in the local serivce.

Web Intents is the mechanism to call the web service w/o the detail knowledge, since the web service
itself may provide UI page. this is also very good concept to have the collaboration web service each other.

so, I just want to have the same mechanism not only web service, but also the local service. if this is enable,
the web service can call the local service w/o the knowledge and will be the collaboration between the web
service and the local service.

thank you,

naoyuki sato.

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd [mailto:jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:00 PM
To: Sato, Naoyuki (TDG)
Cc: Clarke Stevens; public-web-intents@w3.org
Subject: Re: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)

Dear Sato-san

I am sorry, I do not understand the difference.
If you want Web Intents and UPnP services to work together, you need to have the functionality of a UPnP Control Point somewhere, to handle the discovery.
What I see around Action-510 is three implementation choices to make UPnP services act as Web Intents:

Choice 1: Claes' proposal, when you change the SSDP dialog to include intent registration. You need to implement a modified UPnP control point inside the browser, and you need modified UPnP devices and services.

Choice 2: CableLabs/Opera proposal, when you deal with unchanged UPnP devices and do the adaptation in the browser. You need to implement a UPnP control point inside the browser.

Choice 3: my proposal in [1] at the end, where you make the Web Intents registry also act as a UPnP service. This way, you can have the UPnP control point separate from the browser.

The end result is the same: UPnP services providing intents. The actual communication during the service implementation is another discussion, and is orthogonal to the three choices.

And when you say "there is not much motivation to support the existing UPnP device" I strongly disagree with you. Discussions in the Home Network Task Force indicated otherwise.

Best regards
JC


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Apr/0053.html

On 26/4/12 01:44 , Sato, Naoyuki (TDG) wrote:
Hello all,

I believe ACTION-510 and the supporting existing UPnP totally different story and should not discuss w/ together.
they are looks similar, but different.


ACTION-510 is to make the local service as same as the web service as much as possible for current Web Intents
concept

Web intents concept : Invoker  may not know how to deal w/ the called web service from Web Intents system. this is the reason
why the web service is provide UI page and will be easy to make the web service.

UPnP concept : Invoker should know how to deal w/ the local service very much. since this is command base communication.
In this case, they must define how to communicate each other. This takes very long time.

ACTION-510 will provide the mechanism to provide <intent> tag information to UA w/ the similar step of the normal web service.
there is not much motivation to support the existing UPnP device.

To support the existing UPnP device should be different story, since Web Intents is new mechanism to call the web service and
cannot call the existing web service. so, ACTION-510 is introducing the new mechanism to the local service to adapt Web Intents.

To support existing UPnP device should be discussed separately from ACTION-510.

thank you,

nao



From: Clarke Stevens [mailto:C.Stevens@CableLabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:39 AM
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd; public-web-intents@w3.org<mailto:public-web-intents@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)

I completely agree with Jean-Claude's concerns. The proposal I will send out shortly works with existing UPnP devices. It supports UPnP events, a topic we have not really covered in this discussion yet. Finally, it is not exclusive to UPnP. It will work for zeroconf and other device discovery/communication protocols.

Sorry to do a lot of talking without providing the evidence, but I'll get it out as soon as possible. I just wanted to note that we are trying to deal with some of these issues.

-Clarke

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr<mailto:jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>>
To: "public-web-intents@w3.org<mailto:public-web-intents@w3.org>" <public-web-intents@w3.org<mailto:public-web-intents@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)

On 25/4/12 13:54 , Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
ACTION-510: Create new spec how WebIntents UPnP registration
Our idea is to add Intents Service markup to the UPnP Device Description xml-document. We are prototyping this idea and also considering the alternative solution to instead just have a URL to a Web Intents Service registration page in the UPnP Device Description xml-document. One motivation for that is that it would be easier to adapt to standardization changes for registration (referring to discussions on this list and WHAT WG), e.g. usage of a JS API for registration.
JCD: I am really uneasy about this push.
To reformulate, Claes' proposal is to modify UPnP discovery to ease the interworking with Web Intents.

There are many reasons why it would be preferrable to modify Web Intents to fit with UPnP rather than the opposite, including:
- UPnP is a standard from another organisation, it is so much easier to change our own standard
- UPnP is already complete (version 4?) and implemented in many devices, and Web Intents is just a draft
- counting on UPnP extensions has the potential of dramatically reducing the number of Web Intents compatible devices

During the F2F, Giuseppe remarked "we want to reuse existing devices".

I think any departure from that possible reuse of existing devices needs to be thoroughly justified.
Best regards
JC

--

JC Dufourd

Directeur d'Etudes/Professor

Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group

Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing

Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France

Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144




--

JC Dufourd

Directeur d'Etudes/Professor

Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group

Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing

Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France

Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144