- From: Steve VanDeBogart <vandebo@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:50:37 -0700
- To: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
- Cc: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org, public-sysapps@w3.org, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, public-web-intents@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+9kOWP4z8b9q-ZeVivWwubzjN2vUb62x_AfN+xYEV8KcQfwQw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>wrote: > Thanks Steve. Thanks Doug. I looked at your proposals.**** > > Here are a few discussion points that I would like to bring to the table, > actually to all the members:**** > > ** ** > > 1. Requirements**** > > - Locating media storages**** > > - Searching media items (filtering and ordering by given metadata)**** > > - Exposing and modifying metadata**** > > ** ** > > In order to provide media related capabilities to apps, I think the media > item searching and the metadata manipulation are required functionalities. > In this sense, although Device Storage API gives good level of abstraction > and simplicity, it might not cover some of the necessary use cases. In > that, I am sort of leaning on [1] and [3] approaches more. > Since the Media File Systems proposal is on the list, then I agree. But seriously, I think that dealing with metadata (extracting, editing, and searching) will be a useful aspect of the interface and will enable a large variety of consumers of the API. The Media Content API is fairly similar to an earlier version of the Media File System API - before the file system part was added. > 2. Scope**** > > (A) local storage (including external usb device, etc.)**** > > (B) remote media resource (clouds)**** > > ** ** > > (A) seems to be apparent [1][2][3].**** > > For (B), I suppose it is a very useful use case to pick remote media > resource in the cloud-based eco. However, it would not be feasible to make > one perfect API to resolve all the details. > I agree that B is harder. There are a few concessions toward B in the Media File System API, enough that B seems feasible with the API. > Having it considered, my intention was to recast the Gallery API in DAP a > fairly simple one using Web Intents (to cover case B) and work on more > powerful one in the new group, SysApps (for case A).**** > > ** ** > > I would like to hear your opinion.**** > > ** ** > > Here is my demo on (B)[4]: http://jungkees.github.com/gallery**** > > ** ** > > 3. Working Groups**** > > - DAP (Gallery) > **** > > - SysApps (Media Storage)**** > > ** ** > > As mentioned in 2, we have two grounds to move this topic forward. Let's > talk about the direction.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > [1] Media Content: > https://developer.tizen.org/help/topic/org.tizen.help.web.api.device/tizen/mediacontent.html > **** > > [2] Device Storage: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/DeviceStorageAPI**** > > [3] Media File Systems: http://goo.gl/L8zXT**** > > [4] Gallery draft (DAP): > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/16185b62381d/gallery/index.html**** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Jungkee**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Steve VanDeBogart [mailto:vandebo@google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:20 AM > *To:* Doug Turner > *Cc:* Jungkee Song; Doug Turner; public-device-apis@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Media Access/Device Storage/Gallery API**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote:*** > * > > Thanks Steve. I looked at yours and found that it does alot more than we > needed. Basically, we needed a hash to a list of file/blobs.**** > > ** ** > > There is some additional functionality in my API, though it's spec'd in a > way that you could have null implementations for some parts of it. > getDeviceStorage and getMediaFileSystems are pretty similar and the > DeviceStorage class has a subset of the functionality in the FileSystem > API. In addition my API has functionality to deal with the metadata - > extracting what's there, changing metadata, storing auxilary metadata, as > well as searching through it - and a couple utility functions. > extractMetadata/assenbleMediaFile explicitly say that they handle the > metadata that the user agent understands, so a user agent needn't > understand a particular media type or any for that matter. My > searchMetadata() function has some of the functionality of getDeviceStorage > - you could search for a particular media type, but you can also search on > any of the other metadata fields. If you're storing media in a database, > it should be pretty easy to support functionality along those lines and > that functionality makes it very easy to create different ways of sifting > through media files. Of course the utility functions are > completely negotiable, I have some good and some not so good reasons for > them.**** > > **** > > Maybe there is some way we can make these two system work together? For > example, Metadata could easily be some property off of DOMFile, right?**** > > ** ** > > Certainly if you were to use DomFile as the entry type of an > organizational system, you could hang a metadata property off it. However, > the File class already has size, type, mtime, and name as properties > directly on the class so it would be a bit strange to have both first class > and second class metadata.**** > > ** ** > > --**** > > Steve**** > > ** ** > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve VanDeBogart" <vandebo@google.com> > To: public-device-apis@w3.org > Cc: "Jungkee Song" <jungkees@gmail.com>, "Doug Turner" < > doug.turner@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:22:25 AM > Subject: Media Access/Device Storage/Gallery API > > > Since there have now been two media access APIs posted here, I wanted to > point out the one I posted to the webapps group a few weeks ago: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0682.html > The API is at http://goo.gl/L8zXT > > > One big difference in this API is that it uses the FileSystem API. In my > opinion, there are a couple advantage of this approach. Using an existing > API makes it easier for web developers to pick up and integrate with the > rest of the web platform. Also, the FileSystem API is fairly complete - > enumeration, addition, removal, etc in both async and sync flavors - > whereas a separate system would probably add all those pieces in the long > run. And even though the FileSystem API is used, the backend for that API > in the media case could be anything, a directory (or set of directories), a > database, or even an extension that provides access to a user's online > media. > > > It'd be great to talk about bringing these APIs together. > > > -- > Steve**** > > ** ** >
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 18:51:26 UTC