IRC log of webtv on 2011-07-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

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