RE: Where are we?

From: Michael A. Dolan (
Date: Sat, Oct 09 1999

Message-Id: <>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 17:20:55 -0700
From: "Michael A. Dolan" <>
Subject: RE: Where are we?

Hash: SHA1

At 12:00 AM 10/10/99 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 09:31 08.10.99 -0700, Dan Zigmond wrote:
>>The goal here is to define a URI scheme for streams of television 
>>content (i.e., networks or stations or channels) rather than for 
>>pieces of content (programs).  So there would be a "tv:" URI for 
>>(""), and for local member stations of PBS like WQED
>>(""), but not for individual pieces of programming that 
happen to
>>air on PBS.  I see the latter as a different problem.  Important, 
yes, but
>1) I like the proposed scheme of using the DNS namespace.
>2) As a TV watcher, when I've identified a channel, the next level 
>identification is commonly a timeslot, as is done by the ShowView 
>bizarre-digit scheme here in Norway, for instance.
>I would regard content as being an orthogonal identifier, but 
>seems intrinsically channel-bound.

Can you forward the syntax of the scheme you refer to?

I think pure time is probably OK.  One idea I had before was to use 
the standard fragment syntax to do that.  Some specific syntax is 
proposed in my paper I've referenced a couple times on this list.

>Not that it's simple - see the CALSCH calendar specifications for 
just how 
>complex "every thursday at 9 AM, here in Trondheim" can be to 
>exactly - but it's a logical extension to a channel/program stream 
>identification scheme.

Making time alone refer to any specific program is impossible, so its 
utility is not great.  Broadcasters regularly time-shift the network 
feeds.  So, without a localized program guide, one is unlikely to get 
a program.  We need a  scheme that can point to programs (stay tuned 

> (did we ever get down to writing up a glossary for 
>this stuff??)

It's on my list, but since the initial thread, I went on vacation, 
then have been travelling (ATSC meetings, etc).  So RSN, I promise to 
revise it, post it and get concensus, then post it more conveniently 
on the W3C TV web site.

>Making sure it's possible to extend the scheme in that direction may 
be the 
>only thing we should do now.

I agree.  I would prefer to defer it as well.


Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv


Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   
PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903        FAX: (619)445-6122