13:58:57 RRSAgent has joined #webtv 13:58:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/05-webtv-irc 13:58:59 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:58:59 Zakim has joined #webtv 13:59:01 Zakim, this will be 13:59:02 Meeting: Web and TV Interest Group Teleconference 13:59:02 Date: 05 July 2011 13:59:02 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 13:59:12 r has joined #webtv 13:59:27 zakim, list 13:59:27 I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM active 13:59:28 also scheduled at this time are WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)9:00AM, MWI_BPWG()9:30AM, XML_(TAG TF)10:00AM, T&S_XMLSEC()10:00AM, TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM, Team_(wf)13:19Z, UW_WebTVIG(Home 13:59:31 ... Net)10:00AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM, Team_(MEET)10:00AM, Team_(RevCadence)9:00AM, IA_Team()10:00AM 13:59:57 zakim, this will be UW_WebTVIG(HomeNet) 13:59:57 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, kaz 14:00:02 zakim, this will be UW_WebTV 14:00:02 ok, kaz; I see UW_WebTVIG(Home Net)10:00AM scheduled to start now 14:00:14 zakim, call kazuyuki-617 14:00:14 ok, kaz; the call is being made 14:00:15 UW_WebTVIG(Home Net)10:00AM has now started 14:00:17 +Kazuyuki 14:00:28 +??P0 14:00:30 zakim, who is here? 14:00:30 On the phone I see Kazuyuki, ??P0 14:00:33 On IRC I see r, Zakim, RRSAgent, kaz, aizu, igarashi, davidmays, trackbot 14:00:51 Clarke has joined #webtv 14:00:52 zakim, ??P0 is Clarke_Stevens 14:00:55 +Nilo_Mitra 14:00:58 +Clarke_Stevens; got it 14:01:04 zakim, who is here? 14:01:09 On the phone I see Kazuyuki, Clarke_Stevens, Nilo_Mitra 14:01:13 NiloMitra has joined #webtv 14:01:15 On IRC I see Clarke, r, Zakim, RRSAgent, kaz, aizu, igarashi, davidmays, trackbot 14:01:53 +Vicki 14:02:02 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0005.html 14:02:15 +??P14 14:02:19 +DongHyun_Kang 14:02:23 donghyun_kang has joined #webtv 14:02:37 Zakim, ??P14 is me 14:02:37 +aizu; got it 14:06:37 +Tatsuya_Igarashi 14:07:51 Present: Kazuyuki, Clarke_Stevens, Nilo_Mitra, Vicki, aizu, DongHyun_Kang, Tatsuya_Igarashi 14:07:58 Present+ Russell 14:09:06 topic: Use case granularity 14:09:56 +Richard_Bardini 14:10:23 Present+ Richard_Bardini 14:12:13 rbardini has joined #webtv 14:12:35 kaz: there are two types: generic use cases and application specific ones 14:12:51 ... Igarashi-san, could you please talk about your idea? 14:13:17 igarashi: right 14:13:45 ... as I responded to Francois, for example, I can split my issues (ISSUE-24) into three use cases 14:14:19 ... but I'd like to talk about how to handle user scenario first 14:15:49 ... use case should be defined based on user scenario 14:17:44 ... the point is use cases should be described per (1) user scenario or (2) system interaction? 14:17:57 ... and Francois proposed the former 14:18:11 ... so if it's ok by the other participants as well, it's ok 14:18:43 kaz: do you have any preference? 14:18:53 igarashi: don't have any strong opinion 14:19:39 ... btw, my second point is what kind/type of APIs should be defined 14:20:30 q+ russell 14:20:44 zakim, who is noisy? 14:20:53 q+ 14:20:55 kaz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Clarke_Stevens (9%), Vicki (29%), Kazuyuki (15%) 14:20:55 q? 14:20:59 ack r 14:21:24 russell: I'm trying to describe user scenario too 14:22:14 kaz: so you agree we discuss use case per user scenario 14:22:18 russell: right 14:22:37 q+ 14:22:46 ... but if there is issue on interoperability, we need to address that concern 14:22:51 ack iga 14:22:56 q- 14:23:08 igarashi: yes, that's very important 14:24:47 ... I suggest the following: first we do based on user scenario, then categorize use cases, and if we have some category list (e.g., service specific vs. service agnostic) we can talk about them 14:25:47 russell: I'm not sure how to handle implementation concerns 14:26:07 igarashi: from user scenario, we can't argue system interaction 14:26:25 ... what is the benefit to ecosystem, etc. 14:27:07 ... we should clarify user scenario first, and then we could clarify system interaction details 14:27:26 russell: I think the description in your use case is good 14:28:02 ... I'm a bit concerned/wondering what would happen with actual Web pages 14:29:52 kaz: we can add a note about implementation concern to use case description, can't we? 14:30:49 igarashi: do you need some system interaction description to use case description? 14:31:00 russell: yeah 14:31:50 igarashi: we need to discuss what kind of description is needed 14:33:01 ... it would be good for us to discuss concrete system interaction as well 14:33:28 ... and this is related to what kind of type/level of APIs should be discussed 14:35:36 kaz: so low level use cases need some description about concrete system interaction. right? 14:36:25 russell: I'd describe concerns about user scenarios 14:38:37 ... my question is application is already available when we try to discovery a device, etc. 14:38:48 igarashi: that is next step 14:39:06 ... we should be able talk about that kind of details later 14:39:36 russell: sure 14:40:42 ... what I would like to see is what the "discovery step" includes 14:40:53 ... what the mechanism is 14:41:46 igarashi: maybe some kind of content URI will be used... 14:42:27 ... but such kind of discussion (system interaction requirements) should be done later 14:42:41 ... first of all we should clarify user scenarios 14:42:53 ... then clarify types of features 14:43:02 ... third step is system interaction 14:43:13 ... fourth step is @@@ 14:43:49 russell: not sure if we really want prioritization... 14:44:16 igarashi: this IG should define prioritization 14:45:01 russell: not quite sure about the whole IG's strategy... 14:45:05 q? 14:48:04 kaz: I don't think what both Igarashi and Russell are saying are 100% different 14:48:43 ... maybe it's just that we should mention some concern about implementation or system interaction in the use case document, isn't it? 14:49:28 russell: would like to know, e.g., what the fourth bullet expects 14:49:53 ... I'd like to understand what is the concrete system interaction 14:50:01 igarashi: fine by me 14:50:46 ... before beginning system interaction discussion, I'd suggest we think about API type 14:52:24 kaz: how about asking Russell to provide some initial description about system interaction for ISSUE-24? 14:52:42 russell: I've already provided some description for my ISSUE-17 14:53:38 igarashi: I think what we should do is actually quite simple 14:54:40 ... 1. to standardize service-agnostic APIs 14:55:02 ... 2. service specific APIS 14:55:07 s/APIS/APIs/ 14:55:46 russell: need clarification about the terms... 14:56:18 igarashi: "rendering application" could be a service 14:56:47 ... and service-specific APIs relies on the rendering application 14:57:48 ... then 3. standardized document 14:58:36 russell: in terms of "rendering", I'm not quite sure about service-specific API means... 14:58:57 igarashi: for example, play-printer() 15:00:28 ... on the other hand, HTTPXMLRequest is not application/service specific 15:01:42 -Richard_Bardini 15:01:44 ... if there is no more comment, I'd go ahead and think about types of APIs 15:04:42 igarashi: 1. service-agnostic, 2. service-specific and 3. document format via the API 15:07:20 -Vicki 15:08:08 s/document format via the API/service-agnostic API and service-specific document via the API/ 15:08:51 ... and my suggestion is that all the use case submitter should mention those options 15:09:07 ... in their use case proposal 15:09:49 [ adjouned ] 15:10:00 s/adjouned/adjourend/ 15:10:27 rrsagent, make log public 15:10:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:10:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/07/05-webtv-minutes.html kaz 15:11:02 -Nilo_Mitra 15:11:06 -DongHyun_Kang 15:12:16 -Clarke_Stevens 15:30:35 Chair: Kaz 15:30:40 Regrets: Matt 15:30:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:30:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/07/05-webtv-minutes.html kaz 15:46:33 -aizu 15:46:35 -Tatsuya_Igarashi 15:46:37 -Kazuyuki 15:46:38 UW_WebTVIG(Home Net)10:00AM has ended 15:46:40 Attendees were Kazuyuki, Nilo_Mitra, Clarke_Stevens, Vicki, DongHyun_Kang, aizu, Tatsuya_Igarashi, Richard_Bardini 15:57:40 igarashi has joined #webtv