summary minutes call dec 15

From: Philipp Hoschka (ph@w3.org)
Date: Wed, Dec 16 1998


Message-Id: <199812162300.AAA23204@www45.inria.fr>
To: www-tv@w3.org
From: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:00:16 +0100
Subject: summary minutes call dec 15


Participants
-------------

1) Mike Dolan, DirecTV
2) Warner ten Kate, Philips
3) Craig Finseth, US Satellite Broadcasting
4) Gomer Thomas, LGERCA 
5) Dan Zigmond, WebTV



Should W3C be involved ?
-------------------------

arguments contra:
- yet another forum besides ATSC, DVB
- seems to be a need for local URI schemes for each TV system
anyway
- ATSC, DVB could go directly to IETF and register them
- ATSC, DVB seem to be going their own way
- happy to go back to them and tell them what we propose, but
not sure that it'll have much impact
- broadcasters manage their content - they are not interested in globally unique
URIs

arguments pro (prevailed):
- authors will suffer most if we don't come up with unique scheme
- global scheme allows to write applications that can run anywhere
- example: coke commercial - use one URI scheme, and use same content
in New York and Amsterdam
- application writers need global namespace
- you can pick up coke commercial and drop it into proprietary TV system
- that's why we need transport-independant standard
- authoring much harder if you have many URI schemes
- W3C has global reach
- members requested it
- good relation with IETF
- W3C staff has expertise

CONCLUSION: W3C involvement is helpful (not suprising when polling
people that found it worthwhile to participate in this call - 
so, if you disagree, please say so)

Is goal global scheme, or harmonization of local schemes ?
----------------------------------------------------------

Contra global scheme:

- broadcasters manage their content - they are not interested in globally unique
URIs
- local solution will be optimized, whereas global solution will not

Pro global scheme: 

- local URIs better left to whoever owns network
- global scope problem more appropriate for W3C
- talked to advertisers: they want URIs to be transport independent
- but also other content providers, e.g. in the "everybody is a content
provider" scenario (write content on mac, send it off to public cable
station)

Pro harmonization of local scheme:
- consistent local URIs useful to translate global URI into local URI
- there will be a lot of content that is only available in the local
system (e.g. DVB) - using a global solution in this case will create
overhead

Contra harmonization of local scheme:
- less interested in conistent local URIs
- "nice to have" but not crucial
- could write transformation global->local even if largely different

CONCLUSION: Both are interesting - slight priority for working on global
scheme

Next steps
-----------

- Write up document with Use cases/Applicatino scenarios
Editor: Craigh Finseth

Target: do this until end of this week

- Provide Tutorial material explaining inner workings of
ATSC and DVB relevant to URI discusssion (explanation of terms etc.)

- Gomer's "URL background and requirements" contains material for ATSC
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tv/1998OctDec/0040.html

- DVB material: tbd - nobody knows good short tutorial






----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Philipp Hoschka                  |
   http://www.w3.org/people/hoschka |
				    |   World Wide Web Consortium
				    |   MIT-LCS
   ph@w3.org                        |   545, Technology Square
   Tel:(+1) 617.258.0604            |   Cambridge, MA 02139
   Fax:(+1) 617.258.5999            |   USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------