Web and TV Interest Group Teleconference

29 May 2013

See also: IRC log


olivier, Bin_Hu, CyrilRa, giuseppep, glenn, +1.917.693.aaaa, +1.404.312.aabb, Sheau, Mark_Vickers, SteveC


<trackbot> Date: 29 May 2013

<giuseppep> scribenick: giuseppe

<giuseppep> scribe: giuseppe

<giuseppep> Agenda:

<giuseppep> ... intro to TF

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs

<giuseppep> olivier: the wiki is a living document for our TF

<giuseppep> ... this TF is a merger of 3 TFs we had before

<giuseppep> ... the 3TFs where the result of 3 topics the IG wanted to look at

<giuseppep> ... one was terminal capabilities

<giuseppep> ... second topic was recording and downloading media (on the web)

<giuseppep> ... the 3rd was metadata and syncronization

<giuseppep> ... we decided not to work on them in isolation but merge the 3 topics in one TF

<giuseppep> ... as we expect a lot of commonalities

<giuseppep> ... some work has already been done, you can find it on the wiki

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Use_Case

<giuseppep> ... some discussion and use cases on terminal capabilities at TPAC, documented on the wiki

<giuseppep> ... so this is the status quo

<giuseppep> ... any question?

<giuseppep> sheau: what is the planned outcome of this group?

<giuseppep> olivier: the IG is a type of group that is NOT tasked to write specs

<giuseppep> ... our focus should be more on use cases, requirements, gap analysis

<giuseppep> ... we can identify candidate documents that can later go to a WG

<giuseppep> ... we should also look into existing specs, and see how they can be used to achieve our goals

<giuseppep> giuseppe: another option is also to propose to create a new WG/CG, if that is the preferred outcome

<giuseppep> olivier: we have several moderators and chairs in this group

<giuseppep> ... but our role is to facilitate the work, is important that participants are active to move things forward

<giuseppep> olivier: let's do a round of introduction

<giuseppep> [people introduce themselves]

<giuseppep> Meeting: Media API TF

<Mark_Vickers> olivier, FYI you dropped shortly after suggesting we all introduce ourselves.

<SteveC> ?

<SteveC> thx

<giuseppep> olivier: would like to understand what people would like to start working on

<giuseppep> ... one thing we should be doing is to review the landscape related to what we are doing

<giuseppep> ... e.g. the web and broadcasting BG has been working on similar topics

<giuseppep> ... in the same way there are a number of similar efforts done outside of W3C

<giuseppep> ... Bin can you for example describe what is your motivation behind your use cases

<giuseppep> Bin: would like to see alignement in solution for covering the use cases we are looking at

<giuseppep> ... we also want to see if there are new use cases related to TV services

<giuseppep> olivier: any reaction to this?

<giuseppep> olivier: let me try to open the discussion

<giuseppep> ... question: if we only focus on use cases, we may go quite slow

<giuseppep> ... also some of these use cases are pretty well know, and there are repositories of use cases already available

<giuseppep> ... so maybe we should be focusing on things that cannot be done in the current web platform

<giuseppep> ... what do people think?

<giuseppep> glenn: propose to do it in parallel

<giuseppep> mark: we should only look at Use cases that cannot be supported

<giuseppep> ... or that we believe cannot be done

<giuseppep> ... so that we can focus on writing requirements based on those use cases

<olivier> giuseppep: agree with both. Agree with Glenn we should go in parallel

<olivier> ... some parts will mature faster

<olivier> ... when they are we could move on to gap analysis while other use cases are still developed

<olivier> ... we probably need to collect use cases we think are more important. Collecting all possible use cases is not scalable

<olivier> ... once we have prioritised use cases we can work on requirements and gap analysis

<giuseppep> Bin:[sorry missed part of what you said]

<giuseppep> ... I agree that identifying the gap is important

<giuseppep> sheau: I wonder if it makes sense as a group to decide that a use case is not complete until also a gap analysis is done

<Bin_Hu> Bin: start from use cases, and derive the requirement from use cases.

<Bin_Hu> Based on requirement, it is easier to identify the gap

<giuseppep> Bin: so the process should be iterative, there will alwas be new use cases, and for each we will do gap analyis and extract requirements

<giuseppep> ... we could set upo a schedule, and make various iterations to get ino more use cases

<giuseppep> olivier: maybe we can first agree with the schedule of our telcos

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/community/webandbroadcasting/wiki/Main_Page

<giuseppep> ... also, people should start to get familiar with the wiki and start to look at the use cases already submitted

<giuseppep> ... if people can get familiar with what is there and share their views, may be easy to get a sense of what to do

<giuseppep> Bin: how long will the TF be alive?

<giuseppep> olivier: we don't have a hard limit, I suspect it will take 9 months

<giuseppep> giuseppe: we don't need to wait 9months for everything though, once a group of "use cases" is ready we should push it to the next steps while keep working on the other use cases

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/community/webandbroadcasting/wiki/3rd_F2F_meeting

<Mark_Vickers> adding to giuseppe's comment, we should plan for the output of multiple, specific requirements documents, rather than waiting for one omnibus requirements document from this TF.

<olivier> ACTION: olivier to propose process for use cases, based on the one for testing TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Propose process for use cases, based on the one for testing TF [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2013-06-05].

<giuseppep> olivier, will you sned the minutes on the list?

<giuseppep> or do you want me to do it?

<giuseppep> one thing I forgot to say is about the "reaching out to other groups" part, I'll trigger the discussion on the list.

<olivier> ah, yes

<olivier> I can send the minutes

<olivier> but do start convo on reaching out

<olivier> thanks

<giuseppep> ok good thanks

<olivier> ScribeNick: giuseppep

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: olivier to propose process for use cases, based on the one for testing TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-05-29 14:24:53 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/wa/was/
Succeeded: s/iteration/iterations/
Found ScribeNick: giuseppe
Found Scribe: giuseppe
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <giuseppe> ...
Found ScribeNick: giuseppep
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <giuseppep> ...

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 158 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

ScribeNicks: giuseppe, giuseppep

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: olivier, Bin_Hu, CyrilRa, giuseppep, glenn, +1.917.693.aaaa, +1.404.312.aabb, Sheau, Mark_Vickers, SteveC
Present: olivier Bin_Hu CyrilRa giuseppep glenn +1.917.693.aaaa +1.404.312.aabb Sheau Mark_Vickers SteveC
Found Date: 29 May 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-webtv-minutes.html
People with action items: olivier

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]