{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2024-02-15

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG call. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2024/02/15-tt-minutes.html


In plain text:

   [1]W3C

      [1] https://www.w3.org/


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

15 February 2024

   [2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/275

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2024/02/15-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Atsushi, Chris, Chris_Needham, Cyril, Gary, Matt, Nigel,
          Pierre

   Regrets
          Andreas

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          cpn, nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
         1. [6]Agenda
    2. [7]IMSC HRM
    3. [8]DAPT
         1. [9]Updates since previous call
         2. [10]APA WG feedback - name looks like a typo for ADAPT
            w3c/dapt#167
         3. [11]Consider restricting the metadata vocabulary that
            is permitted in DAPT w3c/dapt#176
         4. [12]Following #191 make workflow type a registry, or
            remove it? w3c/dapt#194
         5. [13]Consider renaming "Default Language" to e.g.
            "Language" w3c/dapt#204
         6. [14]clarify what spans are possible in a text and how
            they are handled w3c/dapt#158
    4. [15]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

    Agenda

   Nigel: Brief update on IMSC HRM, then DAPT issues and PRs
   … Is there any other business?

   (nothing)

  IMSC HRM

   Nigel: Since we last met, some things have happened
   … We agreed the proposal to request transition to PR
   … Atsushi raised a transition request, which I reviewed
   … We hadn't included the correct wording in SotD to make it an
   updateable Recommendation
   … This allows us to add features once it's a Rec. Those still
   need review and implementation before adding to the Rec
   … But useful to wider industry to track new features and their
   status
   … I raised a CfC to make that change, there were no objections
   … Atsushi amended the transition request
   … Will that be looked at tomorrow?

   Atsushi: I believe so, it's in the queue
   … will be reviewed shortly

   Nigel: So it's now for the team to review the transition
   request and start the AC review
   … The only other part is adding publication dates, which Pierre
   did. So all good.

   Nigel: Anything else on IMSC HRM?

   (nothing)

  DAPT

    Updates since previous call

   Nigel: Done some work on DAPT in the last weeks. 7 issues
   closed, 6 PRs merged, one abandoned as no longer needed
   … So we're down to 31 issues, just need to keep the momentum
   going
   … Links in the agenda to the open issues and PR

   Nigel: We have 4 issues labeled as agenda

    APA WG feedback - name looks like a typo for ADAPT [16]w3c/dapt#167

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/167


   github: [17]w3c/dapt#167

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/167


   Nigel: This issue is APA WG feedback. They have an initiative
   called "ADAPT", where DAPT looks like a typo for that, also
   they pronounce it similarly
   … It's not a substantive issue, we discussed with the APA WG
   chairs at TPAC, the sense of that was that they weren't too
   concerned
   … So propose closing it with no change
   … Any objections to doing nothing with this?

   (nothing)

   Nigel: OK, so the group agrees to closing with no change

    Consider restricting the metadata vocabulary that is permitted in
    DAPT [18]w3c/dapt#176

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/176


   github: [19]w3c/dapt#176

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/176


   Cyril: I think the jist of my comment is, for everything we
   have in the spec will require work, conformance,
   implementation, testing
   … So I'm inclined to make the required features as small as
   possible
   … Agree that title and copyright don't hurt, people will know
   what to do with them
   … Could settle to have guidance for implementers on what to do
   with them
   … Don't know if we have other elements that could be present
   and should be ignored?

   Nigel: Item, title, and copyright are the elements we don't
   have yet
   … ttm:role? Do we use that?

   Cyril: We did initially, but I don't think so now

   Nigel: Item is possibly the most complicated

   Cyril: It's related to extensibility. I think we should say
   more than we do now. We could say other metadata vocabulary
   from TTML2 may be present but may be ignored

   Nigel: We already say it. In 5.2 we talk about foreign elements
   … There's an editor's note about presentation processors

   Cyril: It doesn't say for an element and attributes

   Nigel: In 5.2.1, says additional vocabulary may be included. So
   we've already permitted it but without saying about potential
   use of it
   … I agree we could rename 5.2 to make it clear it's not just
   foreign, any unspecified elements or attributes

   Cyril: I think we should give guidance on processing
   … I don't want to have people digging into the TTML spec to
   fully understand what a transformation processor is

   Nigel: A few potential actions: One is to describe the purpose
   of title and copyright and say you can put them in
   (particularly copyright, not sure about title)
   … Next is to rename section 5.2, so it relates to any
   unspecified elements or attributes
   … Or reword sentences about transformation process to make it
   more obvious what's meant
   … Wording for a presentation processor is it may ignore
   vocabulary it doesn't understand and where DAPT doesn't require
   support for it

   Cyril: We don't say anything about the dapt namespace? An
   existing processor could see new vocabulary. We want
   deterministic behaviour for the future
   … We have language about namespaces being extensible or
   reserved for future standardisation
   … Want to say that implementations should ignore elements or
   attributes they don't recognise

   Nigel: We have in 5.2 about preserving whenever possible

   Cyril: Does it cover daptm namespace also?

   Nigel: We could change the name of 5.2 to unrecognised elements
   or attributes

   Cyril: I agree, but make it clear it's also about daptm,
   foreign namespaces, and add a note about it being an
   extensiblity point

   Nigel: Are there are other use cases for extensibility we want
   to cover?

   Cyril: We should think about elements, attributes, attribute
   values, text content (character data in general)

   Nigel: Anyone else with experience with this kind of
   extensibility to share?

   (nothing)

   Nigel: We would want existing implementations not to break on
   documents that include vocabulary not yet defined
   … And future implementations still be able to deal with v1
   documents
   … Ideally, but not sure the first of those is always possible
   … Of those potential actions I listed, do we want to do all of
   them?

   Nigel: 1, specify title and copyright

   Cyril: Could be a note, doesn't have to be normative

   Nigel: So it's not part of the data model?

   Cyril: I wouldn't make it so as it's not directly related to
   processing of the content

   Nigel: Makes sense to add a note
   … 2, rename section 5.2 to Unrecognised elements and attributes
   … 3, change the editor's note to say presentation processors
   may ignore where DAPT doesn't require support for it
   … 4, be explicit about the set of namespaces and that this is
   an extensibility point

   Cyril: I think that's a good outcome for this issue

   Nigel: I agree. If we do that, we should resolve #110 at the
   same time

   Cyril: Do we need to say anything about attribute values?
   … As an example, if we want to add a value to an attribute and
   we don't have a registry

   Nigel: Registries aren't allowed to have normative semantics

   Cyril: Example, a new script-type value. How to deal with it in
   an implementation, as it's the value that would be unrecognised
   … IME, a way you'd do it is to pick the closest existing value
   … Don't want to close the extensibility issue now, we need to
   think about unrecognised attribute values more

   Nigel: Anything else to say on this?

   Cyril: No

   SUMMARY: Clarify specification to address points discussed
   above.

    Following #191 make workflow type a registry, or remove it?
    [20]w3c/dapt#194

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/194


   github: [21]w3c/dapt#194

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/194


   Matt: Want to avoid people down the process that the data was
   created for a single purpose

   Nigel: Original transcripts could be used as a source of
   subtitles or dubbing, so forcing into a particular workflow not
   helpful

   Matt: Yes, what you do with it is your choice

   Nigel: I think we have consensus to remove daptm:workflowType

   Cyril: Discussion about adding restrictions based on Workflow
   Type. If you know it's a dubbing document you can validate
   there's no audio elements in it.
   … Not saying I disagree with removing workflow types, but would
   still want an annotation that you can expect something specific
   from the document
   … If we remove it, would we add another vocabulary, e.g., under
   'represents'

   Nigel: Yes

   Cyril: So the proposal is to replace workflow type with
   something about what the content represents rather than what it
   was made for
   … Early on, we discussed ttm:role for this

   Nigel: Could have multiple role values, and assign a mapping.
   If the role is description it's what's in the video image, if
   role is dialog, or music, or sound... Other things there that
   could be useful
   … But ttm:role has both dialog and transcription. It's a
   flexible value set, but not clear which one should use

   Cyril: Still hesitant. Not sure if we should add a new
   attribute or use the existing one
   … We discussed using EBU TT-D vocabulary

   [22]EBU-TT Content Type Classification Scheme

     [22] https://www.ebu.ch/metadata/cs/EBU-TTContentTypeCS.xml


   Nigel: The content type is similar to what we have now
   … So it would reproduce the existing issue we have with
   workflow type

   Cyril: Maybe we should work on a PR and iterate on that?

   Nigel: OK, yes
   … Another option is to use ttm:item and a name, and a namespace
   for the values. But would take a lot of space in the
   document...

   Cyril: Could allow an empty value, or make workflow type
   optional. Or make it a registry, so anyone can register a new
   value

   Nigel: But that doesn't get rid of the problem with workflow
   type
   … Let's make a PR, see how it looks
   … Question about whether it should be a registry. Nothing
   depends on it right now
   … Note about whether things are on screen or not, but no
   normative language

   Cyril: Let's work on the PR

   SUMMARY: Prepare a Pull Request removing Workflow Type and
   adding "represents" or similar.

    Consider renaming "Default Language" to e.g. "Language"
    [23]w3c/dapt#204

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/204


   github: [24]w3c/dapt#204

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/204


   Cyril: In the text object, it says language not default
   language

   Nigel: It's optional in the text object, but mandatory in the
   script object
   … I don't feel strongly about this

   Cyril: I'm fine, we can close this. Things have changed since
   last discussed

   Nigel: Works for me. Any other views?

   (none)

   SUMMARY: Close without change

    clarify what spans are possible in a text and how they are handled
    [25]w3c/dapt#158

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/158


   github: [26]w3c/dapt#158

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/158


   Cyril: Should we go back to the original wording?

   Nigel: Any recommendations for forms of words would be welcome!

   Cyril: I looked at the original issue #17, the recommendations
   were different to what we landed with
   … It was about spans with specific timing, so a different issue

   Nigel: The PR does include spans with timing, does address that
   issue
   … But it also adds something about text of script events
   … We discussed back in June

   Cyril: I think its because we're trying to define what text
   content means
   … I fear we're going into a spiral of adding more
   … I can try to add spans in metadata or foreign elements are
   not considered

   SUMMARY: @cconcolato to attempt a further edit

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thank you all for participating. We meet in 2 weeks
   time, on 29 February

   (adjourned)


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [27]scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).

     [27] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Thursday, 15 February 2024 17:28:57 UTC