W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > August 2013

[apis] minutes - 21 August 2013

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:20:42 +0900
Message-ID: <5214CCBA.900@w3.org>
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks for taking these minutes, Giuseppe and Daniel!



       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                 Web and TV Interest Group Teleconference

21 Aug 2013



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-webtv-irc


           Kaz, Bin, Daniel, Sung_Hei, Wook, Giuseppe, Igarashi,
           Olivier, Cyril, Skip, Mark_Vickers




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]review of action items -
          2. [6]review TF timeline proposal -
          3. [7]use cases / requirement table -
          4. [8]AOB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

review of action items -

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/7

    olivier: start with action-122


      [11] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/122



    olivier: I've added a req to address it

    <kaz> action-122?

    <trackbot> action-122 -- Olivier Thereaux to Outline a
    requirement for offline content protection requirement based on
    UC8 and UC9 -- due 2013-07-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/122

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/122

    olivier: but is good to know that content protection is
    ... so will probably cause objections to some of the community
    ... anyway the req. is now on our list

    <olivier> ACTION-122 CLOSED

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-122.

    olivier: so we can close the action

    <ddavis> giuseppe: Don't have time to work on this.

    <ddavis> ... will try for the next call

    <kaz> action-123?

    <trackbot> action-123 -- Giuseppe Pascale to Propose change to
    UC6/7 to make it more generic -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/123

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/123

    giuseppe: (talking about action-123)



    <kaz> action-124?

    <trackbot> action-124 -- Sung Hei Kim to Hei Kim to confirm
    whether Terminal Use Case on TV Applications are already
    covered in current UC document -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/124

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/124

    olivier: so next action is 124
    ... i think it was discussed over email, and seems this is
    ... can we close this? no objection

    <olivier> ACTION-124 CLOSED

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-124.

    <kaz> action-125?

    <trackbot> action-125 -- Giuseppe Pascale to Draft use cases
    related to metadata -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/125

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/125

    <ddavis> giuseppe: Still pending.

    olivier: action-125

    <kaz> action-126?

    <trackbot> action-126 -- Olivier Thereaux to Edit media apis
    wiki, change intro to the metadata reference list -- due
    2013-07-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/126

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/126

    olivier: moving on to action-126
    ... about cleaning up the metadata section on the wiki. is
    done, can be closed

    <olivier> ACTION-126 CLOSED

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-126.

    <kaz> action-127?

    <trackbot> action-127 -- Sheau Ng to Review use cases and
    requirements document, see whether there is any need for more
    use cases related to content sync -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/127

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/127

    olivier: moving on with action-127

    <kaz> action-128?

    <trackbot> action-128 -- Sheau Ng to Draft table
    cross-referencing use cases and requirements -- due 2013-07-31
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/128

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/128

    olivier: since Sheau is not here let's postpone it

    <olivier> ACTION-128 CLOSED

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-128.

    <olivier> [21]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/7

      [21] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/7

    <kaz> action-129?

    <trackbot> action-129 -- Bin Hu to Migrate requirements from UC
    8 and 9 into requirements document -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/129

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/129

    oivier: action-129, assigned to Bin

    <olivier> ACTION-129 CLOSED

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-129.

    Bin: is done, so we can close it

    <kaz> action-130?

    <trackbot> action-130 -- Giuseppe Pascale to Suggest timeline
    for Media APIs next step -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/130

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/130

    <olivier> ACTION-130 CLOSED

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-130.

review TF timeline proposal -


    olivier: last action has been done, is on the agenda for
    discussion, we can close it



    giuseppe: During the last couple of calls we discussed how to
    organise this
    ... There was a consensus - better to iterate over them to
    avoid discussing endlessly

    giuseppe: First part of my mail described how each phase would
    be structured.
    ... First is use cases.
    ... Then get requirements - then do gap analysis
    ... We can find out whether the specs are covering all the
    requirements or not.
    ... Last phase is to consolidate everything into a note and
    share it with the relevant WGs.
    ... This process has been used before.
    ... First phase - use cases - has already been going for quite
    a while.
    ... After end of August, we won't consider more use cases.
    ... Time is limited because we've already one work on the first
    two phases.
    ... The next iteration will probably take more than four weeks.
    ... By start of October we should finalise this, by end of
    October we should finalise gap analysis ready to discuss it at
    ... In other words, TPAC is the deadline.

    <giuseppe> olivier: any comemnt on this?

    <giuseppe> ... as giuseppe said, this is just one iteration

    giuseppe: any comment? No comments. So we agree on the schedule

    <scribe> ACTION: olivier to copy the timeline on the wiki
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-133 - Copy the timeline on the wiki
    [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2013-08-28].

use cases / requirement table -




    olivier: we are going to review the shared google doc

    bin: I can introduce it, np
    ... the table is derived by the list of UCs and Reqs on the
    ... it was generated to make it easy to see which UC derive
    which req
    ... the black cross is indicating that the mapping was agreed
    ... while the red and question mark are the one inserted by
    Sheau, for discussion
    ... let's review the open issues

    <olivier> giuseppe: is this more of an app authentication
    requirement or device auth?

    <olivier> np

    ddavis, can you take on scribing?

    I'm going to comment a lot :)

    <ddavis> OK


    Bin_Hu: Maybe we can split the requirement into three parts

    giuseppe: Yes, because they're three different things

    olivier: To apply this we need two things - to split this and
    to apply it to the use cases.
    ... Any volunteers to do these two tasks?

    Bin_Hu: I can do that.

    <olivier> ACTION: bin to split requirement 1.5 into 3, update
    the UC/Req table accordingly [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-134 - Split requirement 1.5 into 3,
    update the uc/req table accordingly [on Bin Hu - due

    Bin_Hu: Moving on to the next point - line 14 req 1.12
    ... "Device-to-device content transfer"

    olivier: I'm confused by JC's comment.
    ... He said "yes, with all the implied limitations"
    ... Does he means the transfer may not be allowed if there are
    some restrictions in place?

    Bin_Hu: I think you're correct based on discussions we had back
    in May.
    ... We talked about content protection including paid content,
    parental controls.

    giuseppe: I don't see the use case and the requirement match.
    ... There is no transfer between two devices in this use case.

    <olivier> Use Case link:


    Bin_Hu: In the use case no other device is involved.
    ... After discussion with JC we added offline requirements
    ... but the use case itself doesn't have the second device
    ... Conclusion is to remove the X and ?

    olivier: sounds like consensus.
    ... I'm removing the comment.

    Bin_Hu: Next is 1.16
    ... from use case no. 6
    ... about whether EPG also needs tuner control.
    ... JC wonders whether EPG is just another web app.
    ... Based on my reading of use case no. 6, web apps are apps
    that add content, not EPGs.

    olivier: JC is right that there is overlap and there is a need
    for tuner control, but I don't see it as a problem that there's
    overlap between the use cases. They don't have exactly the same

    giuseppe: I'll try to read these comments more by the next

    Bin_Hu: If we need to merge or consolidate them we can do it

    olivier: so leaving the X and ? for now.

    Bin_Hu: Next is line 22 - req 1.20 - "Content protection"
    ... Use cases 4, 5, 6 have question marks.
    ... First is content sharing - seems to be obvious.



    olivier: There is a bit in use case 4 about someone launching
    content. There would be some content protection but I don't see
    it as core to the use case.
    ... Seems more marginal than key.

    Bin_Hu: I agree
    ... In the use case it mentions a shared video link. That's
    where it comes from.

    Mark_Vickers: When there's content protection it doesn't mean
    it has to be used - it means it has to be allowed for.

    olivier: Leaving the X there.

    Bin_Hu: Next is content search.

    <olivier> Content search UC:


    Bin_Hu: JC says no.

    olivier: In this case I'd agree with JC. It doesn't look like
    content protection is needed in this case.

    Bin_Hu: An example is a movie trailer.

    olivier: Playing devil's advocate, for some people metadata
    about content is something you may want to protect.

    Cyril: That kind of data is more about authentication than
    content protection - i.e. more crypto.

    Mark_Vickers: I agree. It might be good to call content
    protection "media content protection" which is different to
    data protection.

    <olivier> +1

    Mark_Vickers: This makes it clear it doesn't apply to metadata.

    olivier: Should we remove that part or give Sheau a chance to

    Bin_Hu: As a group remove it, but as a courtesy give him a
    heads up why we think it's not relevant. He can share his
    thoughts with the group if necessary.

    olivier: How about adding a comment in that cell explaining the
    group's consensus?

    Bin_Hu: OK
    ... Next is use case no. 7

    olivier: I de-resolved it.

    Bin_Hu: JC is not sure what Sheau means.

    olivier: Any opinion in the group about this?

    Mark_Vickers: I think +1. There will be cases where the live TV
    broadcast is using content protection.
    ... i.e. media content protection.
    ... That's part of the pre-requisite task.
    ... unless somebody was talking about downloads?

    olivier: I don't think so.

    Mark_Vickers: In that case it definitely applies. E.g. HBO is a
    content protected channel and has channel-bound applications.

    olivier: So it looks like we have use cases where this does
    apply so yes to the X.
    ... No objections.
    ... I think that's all the question marks.
    ... One more thing...
    ... We have two use cases - 10 & 11 - for which associations
    have not been made.
    ... Either we go through it quickly or we get volunteers to do
    ... I prefer the latter, then we discuss any points of
    ... Any volunteers?

    <Mark_Vickers> I believe there is one more X missing for 1.22
    Content Playback on UC9 Download and Go

    olivier: I'll volunteer myself

    <olivier> ACTION: olivier to fill UC/Req table for the columns
    of UC 10 and 11 [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-135 - Fill uc/req table for the
    columns of uc 10 and 11 [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2013-08-28].

    Mark_Vickers: Download and Go should be Watch and Record
    ... Although nothing says at a later time someone can playback
    the content, it's mandatory and should be added.

    olivier: I agree, that seems obvious.

    Bin_Hu: Me too - it's implicit.

    Mark_Vickers: We should add it to the use case.

    <olivier> ACTION: Mark to add "playback" to use case 9
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> 'Mark' is an ambiguous username. Please try a
    different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g.,
    mvickers2, mwatson2).

    <olivier> ACTION: Mvicker2 to add "playback" to use case 9
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Error finding 'Mvicker2'. You can review and
    register nicknames at

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/users%3E.

    <olivier> ACTION: Mvickers2 to add "playback" to use case 9
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-136 - Add "playback" to use case 9
    [on Mark Vickers - due 2013-08-28].

    olivier: Based on that, if there are no other questions I
    suggest we adjourn for today.
    ... We should stick to one hour.


    olivier: I'd like to make sure everyone's happy with the next
    meeting being on the 4th September. Anybody unable to make it?
    ... One more thing...
    ... Does anyone want to go through the TPAC registration

    giuseppe: Kaz shared all the information to the list.
    ... Follow that and please register.

    <kaz> [38]TPAC page

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/TPAC/

    giuseppe: We'll have a one-day meeting for this group on
    Tuesday to not overlap with the Web and Broadcasting group (on

    ddavis: Please do it early because you may need a visa and a
    letter from Beihang University.

    giuseppe: One other AOB is a tooling point.

    <kaz> [39]question on invitation letter

      [39] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2013/?login#wbsq15

    giuseppe: I think Google Docs works quite well so should we
    move the use cases over to Google Docs as well?
    ... For me, it lowers the barrier to commenting, at least for
    this group which is not a long-standing group.

    ddavis: I'd be happy as long as it doesn't require a
    third-party (non-W3C) account.

    giuseppe: A third-party account is only required for the person
    who creates the document.

    olivier: I'm happy with either but we should make sure we keep
    a backup copy.

    <kaz> +1

    olivier: W3C has a strong policy - we don't want things

    ddavis: My only concern is that we avoid having too many
    documents in too many places.

    giuseppe: I agree but it's better than using email attachments.

    olivier: We can make sure the wiki points to the new version of
    the document.

    <kaz> +1

    giuseppe: I'll volunteer to update the Google Docs link.
    ... But is the wiki only editable by Team members?

    olivier: No, it should be editable by anybody

    Bin_Hu: In my experience I needed a W3C account to edit the

    olivier: I think you can get a public account to do that.
    ... Giuseppe, why would that concern you? Our use
    cases/requirements do not have strong IPR issues.

    giuseppe: In general we're not accepting contributions from
    ... The other solution is just to have one editor.
    ... In this case, I could copy the document and allow someone
    to be the editor and others can comment on it.

    olivier: Sounds like a good plan.
    ... Any other business?
    ... OK, we are adjourned. Good meeting & talk to you in two

    <olivier> thanks ddavis, giuseppe for scribing

    <kaz> [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: bin to split requirement 1.5 into 3, update the
    UC/Req table accordingly [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Mark to add "playback" to use case 9 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Mvicker2 to add "playback" to use case 9
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Mvickers2 to add "playback" to use case 9
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: olivier to copy the timeline on the wiki
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: olivier to fill UC/Req table for the columns of
    UC 10 and 11 [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [46]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([47]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-08-21 14:16:56 $

      [46] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2013 14:21:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:10 UTC