summary minutes call dec 15

From: Philipp Hoschka (
Date: Wed, Dec 16 1998

Message-Id: <>
From: Philipp Hoschka <>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:00:16 +0100
Subject: summary minutes call dec 15


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
- 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

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
- 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

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

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

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

- DVB material: tbd - nobody knows good short tutorial

   Philipp Hoschka                  | |
				    |   World Wide Web Consortium
				    |   MIT-LCS                        |   545, Technology Square
   Tel:(+1) 617.258.0604            |   Cambridge, MA 02139
   Fax:(+1) 617.258.5999            |   USA