W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > April 2009

minutes of 2009-04-08 teleconference

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:54:53 +0200
Message-ID: <49DCBABD.2090604@cwi.nl>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

The minutes of this week telecon are available for review at
http://www.w3.org/2009/04/08-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
below). Thanks Silvia for the scribing.

There will be no telecon next week (because of the F2F meeting), nor the 
week after (because of the WWW conference). Consequently, the next 
telecon will be on April 29th, at 12:00 UTC.

New actions are:
   * ACTION-58: Silvia to write the introduction
   * ACTION-59: Silvia to make the changes to sections 1-5
   * ACTION-60: Erik to apply changes to section 6
   * ACTION-61: Conrad/Silvia to review 4-way handshake specification in 
the wiki
We aim at requesting publication of our WD Tuesday 14th of April the latest.

   Erik & Raphael


       [1] http://www.w3.org/
              Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
08 Apr 2009
    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/08-mediafrag-irc
           Silvia, Raphael, Yves, Davy, Erik, Jack
           Michael, Conrad
           Erik, Raphael

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]ADMIN
          2. [6]Upcoming F2F Meeting in Barcelona:
          4. [8]action review
          5. [9]AOB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 08 April 2009

    <raphael> Scribe: Silvia

    <raphael> scribenick: nessy


    PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 01st April 2009 telecon:


      [11] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-mediafrag-minutes.html

    <raphael> +1

    <davy> +1

Upcoming F2F Meeting in Barcelona:

    raphael: no teleconf next week but F2F on Thu & Fri
    ... no teleconf the week after F2F because of WWW conf
    ... next teleconf is on 29th April
    ... any objections?

    nessy: no objections

    raphael: this hour is more convenient for Silvia & Conrad

    raphael: we keep this hour

    Agenda building


      [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/ThirdF2FAgenda

    scribe: will assume until 2pm it is reasonable to have Silvia on
    ... will make proposal to put discussion points into time slots
    ... a discussion on each section of the WD

    nessy: suggestion to have another HTTP 2-way / 4-way discussion to
    get Conrad's input
    ... wants to be present for that

    raphael: is planned and will take place in the morning


    raphael: go through section per section and distribute actions
    ... Introduction

    nessy: volunteers to write the introduction

    <scribe> ACTION: nessy to write introduction [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - nessy

    <scribe> ACTION: silvia to write introduction [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Write introduction [on Silvia
    Pfeiffer - due 2009-04-15].

    raphael: discussion on order of the first three sections

    <raphael> Silvia: i need to revisit the framework, side conditions

    <raphael> ... re: issue with transcoding

    <raphael> ... this should go first

    <raphael> ... and then talk about the use cases and scenarios and
    ultimately, the dimensions

    jackjansen: if requirements move up, we need something that gets
    people in the right frame of mind

    <raphael> Jack: put the requirements first might break the flow of
    the reading

    Silvia: most sections are still independent blocks
    ... we need lead-over text
    ... introduction will set the stage, requirements set the framework

    Jack: maybe move use cases into appendix

    raphael: use cases are core to the understanding or our challenges
    and provide motivation for the dimensions
    ... might be interesting to move the "requirements" up - might be
    renamed to "side conditions"

    Jack: agrees to move up "side conditions"
    ... requirements are really section 5

    raphael: new order is 1, 2, 4, 3, 5
    ... rename 4 -> side conditions
    ... rename 5 -> requirements

    nessy: agree

    Jack: agree

    <raphael> +1

    <erik> what about typical UC per axis (temporal/spatial/track/named)
    to get the reader acquainted with the problems (and special cases to

    <scribe> ACTION: silvia to make these changes and other changes to
    sections 1-5 [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Make these changes and other changes
    to sections 1-5 [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2009-04-15].

    raphael will make structural changes to WD directly after the

    scribe: silvia can then work on it when she has time

    erik: there are a lot of use cases and it may be interesting to move
    some to appendix

    <raphael> Erik: i wonder if the individual use cases should be
    ordered differently, following the various dimensions: time, space,
    track, name

    <raphael> Silvia: I think it is better to group them as they are, by

    erik: they make for fast reading and need to be part of the reading

    raphael: what about moving the out-of-scope cases into a separate

    jack: I like it that the use cases are ordered by usage
    ... problem is that there are so many and they slow down reading
    ... 17 different use cases may be too much detail

    raphael: original charter had 2 documents - a use cases &
    requirements ... and a technology document
    ... we now have all in one document
    ... we can later split documents again if it is too much to read
    ... can discuss at F2F
    ... should leave it for now
    ... so we have the current status together in a single document

    jack: ok leave it as is

    nessy: agree

    raphael: section 5
    ... replace the numbers with req-xx
    ... and move the table to an appendix

    <raphael> Raphael: replace the 1,2,3 in the fitness table by human
    readable labels: fit, partial, etc.

    jack: instead of having the table 5.5, it makes more sense to list
    the types of capabilities containers have

    nessy to add a note to the table & running text that we ask people
    for input to the table to complete it

    <raphael> Silvia: add also an editorial note in the main text to
    warn the commnity we need their input to complete this table

    nessy: I will add these changes

    raphael: section 6
    ... improved heaps

    erik: if we should move stuff to appendix, we can live with that
    ... table in 6.3 still needs heaps of input

    raphael: MPEG-7 has track references

    nessy: HTML5 should be removed, since it will do whatever we define
    ... replace "temporal URI" with "temporal URI/Ogg" to include the
    track addressing, to
    ... "Annodex" would be correct, too, but "temporal URI" is the best
    known spec out of this

    raphael: should section 6 be moved down in the document, so we can
    get specifications first?

    erik: I can live with that

    raphael: I will move this section down and do all structural changes
    on document directly after the meeting before anyone else will edit

    jack: editorial suggestion - 6.2 is formatted completely different
    from 6.1
    ... formatting of 6.1 is great - could we apply it to 6.2 ?

    erik: will make changes

    <scribe> ACTION: erik to apply changes to section 6 [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Apply changes to section 6 [on Erik
    Mannens - due 2009-04-15].

    raphael: section 7
    ... in section 7.3 we stop talking about fragments, but talk about
    sections or segments
    ... 7.3 needs an introductory note

    jack: I will create an introductory note and explain that it can be
    either a fragment or a query
    ... we need some standard terminology

    raphael: do we call it dimensions or axis

    general consensus on "dimension

    jack: do we prefer "temporal" over "time" - "spatial" over "space" -
    "named" over "name"?
    ... track will stay track

    <raphael> +1

    jack: all others become "temporal", "spatial", "named"

    nessy: +1

    jack: I tend to use "clipping" for temporal and "cropping" for
    ... is that a good idea or should we just use one?

    nessy: "clipping" has a different implication for audio ... maybe

    jack: but we use "audio clip"

    nessy: ok, fair enough

    jack: 7.4 might need more structure ... but how
    ... is still very incomplete
    ... need to continue collecting semantic issues

    <raphael> Semantic issue:

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3

    jack: restructure when we have a more complete collection

    nessy: suggestion to add a note to the section explaining the need
    to contribute more semantic issues

    jack: ok, will do

    raphael: section 8
    ... Yves pointed out that 4-way contained errors

    Yves: did not understand from temporal URI where the resolution of
    time-bytes happens

    nessy: I will go back and read that section again and make sure the
    4-way is correctly specified

    <scribe> ACTION: silvia and conrad to review 4-way handshake
    specification [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - And conrad to review 4-way handshake
    specification [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2009-04-15].

    <Yves> and I note that there is still a discussion on the ML ;)

    raphael: should reply be 204 in initial handshake for 4-way

    Yves: if you're sending content, then no

    jack: that is missing in the specification

    nessy: header is being sent in first handshake

    jack: in 2-way handshake this may be missing, too - but it's more

    raphael: silvia & conrad - please make changes in wiki ... I will
    then sync the wiki with the WD myself

    nessy: ok

    <raphael> ACTION-55?

    <trackbot> ACTION-55 -- Yves Lafon to change the formal grammar to
    have 'percent' spelled -- due 2009-04-08 -- OPEN


      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/55

action review

    <raphael> close ACTION-55

    <trackbot> ACTION-55 Change the formal grammar to have 'percent'
    spelled closed

    <raphael> ACTION-56?

    <trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Yves Lafon to change the formal grammar to
    have unreserved characters + %-escaped ones in utf8string and _not_
    a set of pchars -- due 2009-04-08 -- OPEN


      [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/56

    <raphael> close ACTION-56

    <trackbot> ACTION-56 Change the formal grammar to have unreserved
    characters + %-escaped ones in utf8string and _not_ a set of pchars

    close ACTION-55

    <trackbot> ACTION-55 Change the formal grammar to have 'percent'
    spelled closed

    <raphael> Yves: I have just done a small modification in the ABNF

    Yves: I added pchar to make it consistent

    <raphael> Jack: to move these changes in the WD

    <raphael> ACTION-49?

    <trackbot> ACTION-49 -- Yves Lafon to draft the HTTP-Range syntax
    for different units (completing all the syntax for the two way
    handshake) -- due 2009-03-25 -- OPEN


      [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/49

    still open

    <raphael> close ACTION-51

    <trackbot> ACTION-51 Summarize the content of the wiki page to put
    in the main document, with few examples and a short story closed

    erik finalized that

    <raphael> ACTION-57?

    <trackbot> ACTION-57 -- Jack Jansen to enter formally in the tracker
    the ISSUE he has found, regarding a) transcoding and b) spatial
    cropping -- due 2009-04-08 -- OPEN


      [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/57

    <raphael> close ACTION-57

    <trackbot> ACTION-57 Enter formally in the tracker the ISSUE he has
    found, regarding a) transcoding and b) spatial cropping closed

    jack finalized 57


    raphael: we will not publish document tomorrow
    ... let's aim for publication on Tuesday
    ... would prefer making the request to publish it before the F2F
    because the WWW conference will delay it further otherwise

    nessy: +1

    raphael: thanks for attending conference and will see you next week

    <raphael> will give it a try

    <raphael> type: s/Topic: Actions Review/Topic: Actions Review

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: erik to apply changes to section 6 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: nessy to write introduction [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: silvia and conrad to review 4-way handshake
    specification [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: silvia to make these changes and other changes to
    sections 1-5 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: silvia to write introduction [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

RaphaŽl Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 14:55:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:42 UTC