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

minutes of 2009-09-09 teleconference

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:40:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA7B051.6020600@cwi.nl>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
All,

The minutes are available for review at 
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format 
below).
Cheers.

   Erik & RaphaŽl

-----------
    [1]W3C
       [1] http://www.w3.org/
              Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
09 Sep 2009
    [2]Agenda
       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0025.html
    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-irc
Attendees
    Present
           Michael, Raphael, Yves, Wonsuk, Silvia(irc), Erik
    Regrets
           Davy, Conrad, Jack
    Chair
           Erik/Raphael
    Scribe
           raphael

Contents
      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. ADMIN
          2. [6]2. UC & REQUIREMENTS:
          3. [7]3. SPECIFICATION
          4. [8]4. TEST CASES
          5. [9]5. ISSUES
          6. [10]6. AOB
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 09 September 2009

    Regret+ Jack

    <scribe> Scribe: raphael

    <scribe> scribenick: raphael

    Informal discussion about the syntax of the Range unit syntax

    Raphael: can we have multiple values in the Acept-Ranges ?

    Yves: yes, comma separated

    Michael: I would also suggest to use the cue-values, like the accept
    header
    ... for example, I accept npt with 0.8 and smpte-30 with 0.2

    Yves: makes less sense [I didn't get why]

    <Yves> <<

    <Yves> The response-header "Accept-Ranges" field allows the server
    to

    <Yves> indicate its acceptance of range requests for a resource:

    <Yves> >>

    Michael: but then, what does it mean, they are equal ?

    Yves: yes, the server decides

1. ADMIN

    <Yves> +1

    PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 02 September 2009 telecon

    <mhausenblas> +1

    [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/02-mediafrag-minutes.html

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/02-mediafrag-minutes.html

    +1

    Minutes accepted

    Virtual F2F meeting:
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/FourthF2FAgenda

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/FourthF2FAgenda

    [14]http://www.doodle.com/xbw9stfdmz3pr4nw

      [14] http://www.doodle.com/xbw9stfdmz3pr4nw

    <nessy> +1

    Unfortunately: for the meeting, Jack will not make it and Yves is at
    risk

    Jack will be on irc

    ALL: please, complete the agenda with background reading material to
    prepare the meeting

2. UC & REQUIREMENTS:

    ACTION-95?

    <trackbot> ACTION-95 -- Michael Hausenblas to review ALL UC with a
    mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile
    usage -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95

    -- continue

    ACTION-101?

    <trackbot> ACTION-101 -- Yves Lafon to write a UC describing the use
    of aspect ratio feature and thus motivating its usage -- due
    2009-09-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/101

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/101

    close ACTION-101

    <trackbot> ACTION-101 Write a UC describing the use of aspect ratio
    feature and thus motivating its usage closed

    We received 3 reviews from MAWG

    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
    Sep/0008.html

      [17] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0008.html

    [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
    Sep/0012.html

      [18] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0012.html

    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009
    Sep/0013.html

      [19] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0013.html

    Werner to introduce other units such as smpte-50 and smpte-60

    Nobody against ?

    [silence]

    <Yves> ok with this, (but we should avoid explosion of units)

    <scribe> ACTION: raphael to address all comments and write a reply
    to MAWG [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - raphael

    trackbot, status

    <scribe> ACTION: RaphaŽl to address all comments and write a reply
    to MAWG [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with
    the details of what happened.

    Michael: should we have also a paragraph, directed to the MPEG-21
    community why we are doing that?

    <scribe> ACTION: RaphaŽl to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in
    the document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG
    community [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with
    the details of what happened.

    <scribe> ACTION: Troncy to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in
    the document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG
    community [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with
    the details of what happened.

    Good we have finally one review of our document from a WG

    Yves: I will contact TAG once more
    ... and tell them our current design choice regarding the use of ?
    when transcoding is necessary

3. SPECIFICATION

    ACTION-103?

    <trackbot> ACTION-103 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to write a paragraph in our
    2 documents, most likely within the Terminology sections, explaining
    that when we say URI, we mean URI Ref -- due 2009-09-09 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/103

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/103

    close ACTION-103

    <trackbot> ACTION-103 Write a paragraph in our 2 documents, most
    likely within the Terminology sections, explaining that when we say
    URI, we mean URI Ref closed

    Silvia has proposed a paragraph

    Raphael has slightly updated it, now present in the 2 documents

    ACTION-49?

    <trackbot> ACTION-49 -- Yves Lafon to draft the HTTP-Range syntax
    for different units (completing all the syntax for the two way
    handshake) -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/49

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/49

    close ACTION-49

    <trackbot> ACTION-49 Draft the HTTP-Range syntax for different units
    (completing all the syntax for the two way handshake) closed

    Yves: my proposal is to re-use the same kind of syntax than for
    bytes
    ... for the Range header: Range: <timeformat> '=' <start time> -
    <end time>
    ... and for the Content-Range header
    ... Content-Range: <timeformat> ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end
    time> '/' <total duration>
    ... since we are not using '-' and '/' in our syntax, it is safe
    ... there are a number of things to do ... register some units, such
    as npt, smpte-30, etc.

    One issue: the duration for some unit might not be easy to define

    scribe: would welcome the opinion of Jack and Davy

    Yves: I have proposed also another solution, more flexible, but a
    bit more complex
    ... we could then mix units (bad?) but it solves the duration
    problem

    <Yves> issue is when you are requesting a fragment of a
    smpte-indexed video

    <Yves> if the beginning of the file is not 0:0:0.0

    <Yves> then you have an issue expressing duration

    <Yves> (if you use the same unit)

    Yves: I think that smpte information is embedded in the file

    ACTION-69?

    <trackbot> ACTION-69 -- Conrad Parker to draw a representation of
    the general structure of a media resource, for streamable formats
    (H/H' + K + D1 + D2 + D3) -- due 2009-04-24 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/69

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/69

    I will chase Conrad, we need this picture

    ACTION-104?

    <trackbot> ACTION-104 -- Yves Lafon to start a thread on the mailing
    list to summarize the state of the discussion regarding ? and # (?
    when transcoding happening, #for other cases) + use of URI template
    for ? -- due 2009-09-09 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/104

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/104

    close ACTION-104

    <trackbot> ACTION-104 Start a thread on the mailing list to
    summarize the state of the discussion regarding ? and # (? when
    transcoding happening, #for other cases) + use of URI template for ?
    closed

    A long thread has started

    only Silvia and I have answered so far

    [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Se
    p/0016.html

      [28] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0016.html

    Michael: having 2 ways for expressing the same thing might make the
    standard too complex to implement
    ... for me, a fragment is definitively a 'hash'
    ... needs to have another thought

    Erik: same here, we need to discuss it with Davy

    Raphael: I will put that upfront on the agenda, with background
    reading, so everybody must have an opinion

    <nessy> We have to accept the definitions of URIs where a fragment
    has a specific meaning

    I agree

    <nessy> if some of the operations that we require on media documents
    do not fall under this definition, we cannot do it with fragments

    <nessy> it is not our choice to redefine URI fragments and queries

    Silvia: the problem is that the specific meaning for fragments is
    loosely defined currently
    ... and up to many interpretations

    <nessy> not really

    <mhausenblas> nessy, why not?

    Raphael: thus the open question to the TAG group

    Summary on protocol issue:
    [29]http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/09/08/uri-fragments-vs-uri-queri
    es-for-media-fragment-addressing/

      [29] 
http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/09/08/uri-fragments-vs-uri-queries-for-media-fragment-addressing/

    <nessy> it clearly states that it is relates to a primary resource

    <nessy> "The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect

    <nessy> identification of a secondary resource by reference to a
    primary

    <nessy> resource and additional identifying information."

    <nessy> quoted from [30]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

      [30] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

    The problem is that we DON'T know if when you do transcoding, this
    is part or not of the primary resource

    <nessy> a transcoded resource is not identical to the primary
    resource

4. TEST CASES

    Michael: have hack corrib, [31]http://ld2sd.deri.org/corrib/

      [31] http://ld2sd.deri.org/corrib/

    Silvia: where do you have this statement written?

    "a transcoded resource is not identical to the primary resource" <-
    needs a ref :-)

    <nessy> it's in the nature of what a URI is

    Michael: motivation, have a collaborative tool to directly generate
    the test cases in RDF ... instead of editing on wiki and then do a
    manual conversion

    <nessy> different transcoded representations have to be different
    resources

    Silvia: what you say is appealing, but needs to be defined somewhere

    Raphael: and in particular, where to define the border?

    <nessy> so, if the primary resource is addressed by
    [32]http://example.com/xxx , how do you address the transcoded
    resource?

      [32] http://example.com/xxx

    is the black and white version of an image a different resource and
    not part of the primary version?

    <nessy> I can only think of two ways of doing it:
    [33]http://example.com/yyy or [34]http://example.com/xxx?transcode

      [33] http://example.com/yyy
      [34] http://example.com/xxx?transcode

    <nessy> yes

    <nessy> even if the server creates the black and white version on
    the fly, it still requires a different URI to tell the server to
    create it

    <mhausenblas> see [35]http://ld2sd.deri.org/corrib/mftc.rdf

      [35] http://ld2sd.deri.org/corrib/mftc.rdf

    <nessy> we know that even trying to identify the same resource in
    different representations for different languages hasn't worked and
    people generally use index.en.html and index.de.html etc

    Raphael: silvia, one could argue this is a different representation
    of the same resource, just degraded, that could be serve with the
    same URI
    ... Silvia, not in the SW world, and honnestly, content negotiation
    based on languages is very widely deployed on the web nowadays

    <scribe> ACTION: Michael to add the missing test cases in corrib
    [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Add the missing test cases in corrib
    [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-09-16].

    Michael: but please, all, you should give it a try

    ACTION-93?

    <trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Michael Hausenblas to revisit the TC and see
    which are effected by the temporal-optional-comma-decision -- due
    2009-07-29 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/93

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/93

    -- continue

    <nessy> Accept-Language is part of http - there is no content
    negotiation for transcoding defined in http, so it can only work
    through query parameters with the current web

    Michael: I will add line number but not explicitely number for TC by
    next week
    ... and I will complete my actions

5. ISSUES

    ACTION-82?

    <trackbot> ACTION-82 -- Michael Hausenblas to flesh out TC
    vocabulary re ISSUE-9 -- due 2009-07-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/82

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/82

    -- continue (still)

    Michael: but it is easier now that Corrib is in place

    close ACTION-82

    <trackbot> ACTION-82 Flesh out TC vocabulary re ISSUE-9 closed

    we don't need it anymore

    but the iSSUE remains open

    Erik: Davy is wroking on his action and it will be ready for next
    week

6. AOB

    [silence]

    no telecon next week but the virtual f2f

    I think i know why I cannot have anymore AP, maybe because i have
    changed affiliation

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Michael to add the missing test cases in corrib
    [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: raphael to address all comments and write a reply to
    MAWG [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: RaphaŽl to address all comments and write a reply to
    MAWG [recorded in
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: RaphaŽl to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the
    document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG
    community [recorded in
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Troncy to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the
    document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG
    community [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________

-- 
RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 13:41:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:34 GMT