Re: DASE: Proposal to explicitly defer initial URI discussions to W3C

From: Gomer Thomas (gomer@lgerca.com)
Date: Wed, Dec 23 1998


Message-ID: <36813281.B1C12632@lgerca.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:12:17 -0500
From: Gomer Thomas <gomer@lgerca.com>
To: Scott Watson <scott@disney.com>
CC: DASE List <dase@toocan.philabs.research.philips.com>, www-tv <www-tv@w3.org>
Subject: Re: DASE: Proposal to explicitly defer initial URI discussions to 		  W3C

Scott,

I think you are mistaken that any URI scheme which is adopted must include the
notion of "tuning-domain" or "tuner-type". This is akin to requiring that Internet
URIs must include a notion of "link-type" -- ethernet, ATM, token-ring, etc. A
good broadcast TV URI scheme should operate at a level above that. The scheme
which Craig Finseth and I have proposed is in fact independent of underlying
broadcast technology.

You don't need a URI to tune a TV set, or to set such parameters as size and
position of a TV window on a screen, volume level of the sound track, etc., any
more than you need a URI to seek to the track on a disk where a still image is
stored, or to set the size and position of the image in a page. An "http:" URI
simply tells you where to find the image, in a form which is independent of
underlying link-level network technology and server-level disk technology. Then
application specific mechanisms are used to determine what to do with the image
once you get it.


Scott Watson wrote:

> ...
>
>     Gomer> I plan to work with both ATSC and W3C on this issue, and
>     Gomer> one of my goals will be for both ATSC and W3C to adopt the
>     Gomer> same solution, but it would be irresponsible for ATSC to
>     Gomer> just sit back and do nothing on this issue. If attempts at
>     Gomer> harmonization fail, ATSC must be prepared to adopt an
>     Gomer> "atsc:" scheme as a last resort.
>
> ...
>
> If we end up with a scheme that includes the notion of
> 'tuning-domain', or 'tuner-type' (see below), which I believe anything that is
> finally adopted must do; then defining ATSC "tuning strings" should be
> left to the ATSC, and DASE is a fine group to suggest something. This
> is sort of like the "atsc:" you mention.
>
> If the URI is something like:
>         tv:/tuner-type/domain-specific-tunerstring
>
> Then we'll end up with something like (I'm just making up
> tuner-specific-strings):
>
>         tv:/ntsc/7
>         tv:/directv/255
>         tv:/directv/comedy-central
>         tv:/epg/(&(program=x-files)(when=now))
>         tv:/atsc/7.2 (<- or whatever)
>
> This means that we can 'factor-out' all the common attributes into a
> "TV:" base class, (current-channel, position, size, volume, mute,
> audio-sub channel, etc.) and still leave the tuner-specific
> definitions and APIs to the appropriate bodies.
>
> Just as we would expect the folks at DirecTV to come up with the a
> syntax for tuning their devices, the ATSC would provide an 'atsc'
> specific tuner-string.
>
> Even if we defer the meta-syntax to the w3c, the ATSC SPECIFIC STRINGS
> SHOULD COME FROM DASE.
>
> So I would modify Mikes proposal to:
>
>         1) Let's defer the meta-syntax definition to W3C
>         2) Let's discuss and propose ATSC specific tuning.
>
> -Scott



--
Gomer Thomas
LGERCA, Inc.
40 Washington Road
Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
phone: 609-716-3513
fax: 609-716-3503