W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Minutes of 2009-02-04 telecon

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:53:02 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5AF402E.18DE%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>


Silvia, All,

> On the issue of MPEG fragment specifications - you can find them here:
> http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/technologies/mp21-fid/index.htm.htm .
> I don't think they ever added these into the relevant RFCs - seeing as
> MPEG specs are standards, too.

Great. Thanks.

> * to be complete, it should also apply to audio/* and to image/* as
> appropriate

Agree. I just didn't have the chance to discuss that further back then with
him, but that was my gut reaction as well.

> * we need to be careful though with a broad declaration like this: the
> issue is not the specification, but the implementation and the support
> of all media server software and all media player/browser software
> with these fragment specifications

+1.

> * I think also that we need to approach it carefully, in particular in
> cases where mime types have already specified their own fragment
> specification; in these cases we should strive to harmonize it through
> liaisons before declaring it th one-and-only correct way

+1

I guess we need an action for this. Do we have a list of media types that
define fragment semantics handy or do I have to manually dig trough [1] in
order to spot them?

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html


> From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:43:06 +1100
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Minutes of 2009-02-04 telecon
> 
> Sorry I missed the meeting. :(
> 
> On the issue of MPEG fragment specifications - you can find them here:
> http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/technologies/mp21-fid/index.htm.htm .
> I don't think they ever added these into the relevant RFCs - seeing as
> MPEG specs are standards, too.
> 
> Also a little feedback on the TBL suggestion of simply applying the
> fragment specification to all video/* mime types:
> * it is great to have such a statement from TBL, which sets the strategic
> focus!
> * to be complete, it should also apply to audio/* and to image/* as
> appropriate
> * we need to be careful though with a broad declaration like this: the
> issue is not the specification, but the implementation and the support
> of all media server software and all media player/browser software
> with these fragment specifications
> * I think also that we need to approach it carefully, in particular in
> cases where mime types have already specified their own fragment
> specification; in these cases we should strive to harmonize it through
> liaisons before declaring it th one-and-only correct way
> 
> Seems to have been a nice and short meeting otherwise - to the point!
> 
> Cheers,
> Silva.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Michael Hausenblas
> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> The minutes of today's call are ready for review [1]; below follows a text
>> dump.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>      Michael
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html
>> 
>> 
>> ==========================================================================
>> W3C Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
>> 
>> 04 Feb 2009
>> 
>>   [2]Agenda
>> 
>>      [2]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Feb/0009.html
>> 
>>   See also: [3]IRC log
>> 
>>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-irc
>> 
>> Attendees
>> 
>>   Present
>>          michael, raphael, davy, thierry, yves, jack, Guillaume
>> 
>>   Regrets
>>          Erik
>> 
>>   Chair
>>          Raphael
>> 
>>   Scribe
>>          mhausenblas
>> 
>> Contents
>> 
>>     * [4]Topics
>>         1. [5]ADMIN
>>         2. [6]FUTURE PARTICIPANTS
>>         3. [7]PREPARATION OF WORKING DRAFT
>>         4. [8]ISSUES
>>         5. [9]AOB
>>     * [10]Summary of Action Items
>>     _________________________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   <trackbot> Date: 04 February 2009
>> 
>>   <Gui> Gui waves everybody, long time
>> 
>>   <Gui> Dialing now
>> 
>>   <scribe> Scribenick: mhausenblas
>> 
>> ADMIN
>> 
>>   <Gui> brb
>> 
>>   <raphael> +1 for accepting the minutes
>> 
>>   raphael: accept last week's telecon
>> 
>>   +1
>> 
>>   <davy> +1
>> 
>>   minutes accepted
>> 
>>   <scribe> ACTION: michael to review Use Cases and Requirements for
>>   Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 [recorded in
>>   [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>> 
>>     [11] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01
>> 
>>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Review Use Cases and Requirements for
>>   Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 [recorded in
>>   [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>>   [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-02-11].
>> 
>>     [12] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- done
>> 
>>   see
>>   [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Ja
>>   n/0095.html
>> 
>>     [13]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0095.html
>> 
>>   Michael: let's continue the discussion
>> 
>> FUTURE PARTICIPANTS
>> 
>>   Raphael: ACTION-18 (DailyMotion)
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- continues
>> 
>>   Erik: ACTION-21 (Cisco)
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- continues
>> 
>>   Michael: ACTION-20 (Wolfgang)
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- continues
>> 
>> PREPARATION OF WORKING DRAFT
>> 
>>   raphael: will attend the SW co-ordination group and report on our MF
>>   work
>>   ... will report about the feedback
>> 
>>   ACTION-33: Raphael to start the template of the document
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ACTION-33 Start the template of the document notes added
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- continues
>> 
>>   raphael: will be available today
>> 
>>   every person has a section responsible, please paste from Wiki and
>>   polish
>> 
>>   raphael: we use xmlspec
>> 
>>   jackjansen: can we agree on syntax?
>> 
>>   raphael: in a minute
>> 
>>   <Yves> ABNF
>> 
>>   ACTION-27: Yves to propose by email a good list of units that can be
>>   used
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ACTION-27 Propose by email a good list of units that can
>>   be used notes added
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- done
>> 
>>   raphael: consensus to have px and percentage
>>   ... ongoing discussion on having cm, etc.
>>   ... jackjansen objects
>> 
>>   jackjansen: had problems on Mac from Windows images having DPI
>>   measures
>> 
>>   raphael: conclusion pc and % and give reason why cm, et. will not be
>>   supported
>>   ... see
>>   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion
>>   ... will solicit feedback from the community
>> 
>>     [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion
>> 
>>   Yves: regarding aspect ratio ...
>> 
>>   jackjansen: general aspect ratios might not be useful
>> 
>>   <raphael> Yves: aspect ratio to specify the region one would like to
>>   crop, for example write 3:4 or 16:9
>> 
>>   <Gui> Is there an actual section about the aspect ratio issue on the
>>   WIki?
>> 
>>   raphael: propose Yves to modify the current phrasing
>> 
>>   <scribe> ACTION: Yves to rephrase
>>   [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Dimensions
>>   to address the aspect ratio [recorded in
>>   [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>> 
>>     [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Dimensions
>> 
>>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Rephrase
>>   [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Dimensions
>>   to address the aspect ratio [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-02-11].
>> 
>>     [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Dimensions
>> 
>>   raphael: Conclude syntax discussion ...
>> 
>>   <Gui> So aspect ratio is to help enforcing standard cropping?
>> 
>>   <Yves> that would be the goal
>> 
>>   Michael: usually ABNF
>> 
>>   ahm, yeah ;)
>> 
>>   [18]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2234.txt
>> 
>>     [18] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2234.txt
>> 
>>   <Gui> Augmented Backus-Naur Form
>> 
>>   sorry.
>> 
>>   [19]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4234.txt
>> 
>>     [19] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4234.txt
>> 
>>   raphael: volunteer to transform into ABNF
>> 
>>   Yves: volunteers to do it
>> 
>>   <scribe> ACTION: Yves to rewrite Syntax in ABNF based on RFC4234
>>   [recorded in
>>   [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
>> 
>>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Rewrite Syntax in ABNF based on
>>   RFC4234 [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-02-11].
>> 
>>   raphael: UC
>>   ... went through all reviews
>> 
>>   <Gui> true
>> 
>>   raphael: we need to take actions to implement changes
>> 
>>   Gui: Planned to do, still on the to do list
>> 
>>   raphael: till when?
>> 
>>   Gui: till next meeting
>> 
>>   <scribe> ACTION: Gui to incorporate changes proposed by reviewers
>>   till next meeting [recorded in
>>   [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]
>> 
>>   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Guillaume (Jean-Louis)
>> 
>>   <raphael> trackbot, status
>> 
>>   raphael: Existing Technologies Survey
>> 
>>   ACTION-24: Erik (through extra info from Felix) to ask Adobe (Larry)
>>   more info about xmpMM:Ingredients
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ACTION-24 (through extra info from Felix) to ask Adobe
>>   (Larry) more info about xmpMM:Ingredients notes added
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- done
>> 
>>   ACTION-23: Erik (together with Jean-Pierre) to add TV-Anytime also
>>   to Existing Technologies Survey
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ACTION-23 (together with Jean-Pierre) to add TV-Anytime
>>   also to Existing Technologies Survey notes added
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- continues
>> 
>>   ACTION-16: Erik to go through the email lists to list different
>>   solutions used to identify fragments, and populate the wiki
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ACTION-16 Go through the email lists to list different
>>   solutions used to identify fragments, and populate the wiki notes
>>   added
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- continues
>> 
>>   raphael: HTTP implementation (Raphael)
>> 
>>   ACTION-34: Jack to look at python-url library to see whether he
>>   could implement the logic on client side
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ACTION-34 Look at python-url library to see whether he
>>   could implement the logic on client side notes added
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- continues
>> 
>>   ACTION-35: Raphael to look at curl and/or wget to see whether the
>>   logic could be implemented on client side
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ACTION-35 Look at curl and/or wget to see whether the
>>   logic could be implemented on client side notes added
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- continues
>> 
>> ISSUES
>> 
>>   ACTION-37: Raphael to summarize the clip-combining discussion
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ACTION-37 Summarize clip-combining discussion notes added
>> 
>>   <scribe> -- done
>> 
>>   raphael: one comment from Silvia
>> 
>>   <raphael> Discussion: it boils down to whether the media fragment is
>>   sees as in-context or out-of-context
>> 
>>   jackjansen: suggest to people to use some method for out of context
>> 
>>   <raphael>
>>   [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion
>> 
>>     [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion
>> 
>>   raphael: jackjansen please update on the Wiki
>>   [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion
>> 
>>     [23] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion
>> 
>>   jackjansen: currently doin it .. no need for an action
>> 
>>   close ISSUE-1
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ISSUE-1 Combining Media Fragment URI with other
>>   time-clipping methods closed
>> 
>>   ISSUE-3: Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME
>>   Type registrations?
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ISSUE-3 Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to
>>   update MIME Type registrations? notes added
>> 
>>   see
>>   [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Ja
>>   n/0091.html
>> 
>>     [24]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0091.html
>> 
>>   <Yves> ISSUE-3?
>> 
>>   <trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to
>>   update MIME Type registrations? -- OPEN
>> 
>>   <trackbot>
>>   [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3
>> 
>>     [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3
>> 
>>   Michael: see
>>   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Semantics
>> 
>>     [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Semantics
>> 
>>   <raphael> TBL Quotes: "I think that it would be good to have a
>>   general rule for video/* that there is a common fragment identifier
>>   syntax and semantics. I think that the specification should claim
>>   all video/*. The W3C specification itself can be a media type
>>   specification... I think it can be registered in the registry as the
>>   spec for a MIME type."
>> 
>>   <jackjansen> I updated
>>   [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion
>> 
>>     [27] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion
>> 
>>   raphael: will approach TAG officially
>> 
>>   jackjansen: thought MPEG has its own hands on it?
>> 
>>   <scribe> ACTION: Michael to dig deeper into the video/* issue
>>   proposed by TimBL [recorded in
>>   [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html#action05]
>> 
>>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Dig deeper into the video/* issue
>>   proposed by TimBL [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-02-11].
>> 
>>   jackjansen: IANA registry might be a starting point
>> 
>>   davy: not aware of types MPEG has
>> 
>>   raphael: we all have important actions (esp. ME) so let's work on it
>>   ... re Hypertext co-ordintation group
>> 
>> AOB
>> 
>>   raphael: part of the domain activity
>>   ... next Hypertext co-ordintation group meeting will be about Test
>>   Suites
>> 
>>   Michael: will summaries my experiences and issues
>> 
>>   raphael: gathering best practices
>> 
>>   s/[DONE] ACTION: michael to review Use Cases/[DONE] ACTION: michael
>>   to review Use Cases
>> 
>>   raphael: thanks and see you next week
>> 
>>   [adjourned]
>> 
>> Summary of Action Items
>> 
>>   [NEW] ACTION: Gui to incorporate changes proposed by reviewers till
>>   next meeting [recorded in
>>   [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]
>>   [NEW] ACTION: Michael to dig deeper into the video/* issue proposed
>>   by TimBL [recorded in
>>   [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html#action05]
>>   [DONE] ACTION: michael to review Use Cases and Requirements for
>>   Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 [recorded in
>>   [31]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>>   [NEW] ACTION: Yves to rephrase
>>   [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Dimensions
>>   to address the aspect ratio [recorded in
>>   [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>>   [NEW] ACTION: Yves to rewrite Syntax in ABNF based on RFC4234
>>   [recorded in
>>   [34]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
>> 
>>     [31] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01
>>     [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Dimensions
>> 
>>   [End of minutes]
>> =======================
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
>> Galway, Ireland, Europe
>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:53:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:32 GMT