- From: Sean Lin <selin@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:06:57 +0800
- To: Paul Higgs <paul.higgs@ericsson.com>
- Cc: "public-tvapi@w3.org" <public-tvapi@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAO=Rbv=tJzM0xif=ZymHo=b0Pe4sSqY+i7=pNXudLQesY=r3Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all, The adjustments based on previous discussion in this thread has been updated to the spec. [1] Thanks, Sean [1] http://w3c.github.io/tvapi/spec/#tvemergencyalertedevent-interface On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Paul Higgs <paul.higgs@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Sean > > I an certainly not "insisting" on this, just explaining EAS use. > This approach would work, if getRegions returned an empty sequence then > there is no application level regional filtering to be done on the event. > > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Sean Lin [selin@mozilla.com] > *Received:* Friday, 10 Apr 2015, 6:01am > *To:* Paul Higgs [paul.higgs@ericsson.com] > *CC:* TV Control API Community Group [public-tvapi@w3.org] > *Subject:* Re: tvapi-ACTION-26: Contact sean and add emergency alert > requirements to the spec > > Hi Paul, > > Alright. If you still insist, we may add the following method to the > event. > > sequence<DOMString> getRegions(); > > But the returned array is not guaranteed to be non-empty because not all > emergency warning systems would expose sufficient geographical info about > the alert to the endpoint. > > Sean > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Paul Higgs <paul.higgs@ericsson.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Sean >> >> >> >> If that is how you expect **all** emergency warning systems to operate, >> then your proposal is appropriate. >> >> I do not, however, believe your high-level theory is correct >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> *From:* Sean Lin [mailto:selin@mozilla.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 09, 2015 12:16 AM >> >> *To:* Paul Higgs >> *Cc:* TV Control API Community Group >> *Subject:* Re: tvapi-ACTION-26: Contact sean and add emergency alert >> requirements to the spec >> >> >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> >> I still don’t believe we can overload the severityLevel in this way. >> >> The same content is broadcast to all receivers and the transport stream >> contains alert events for all regions where the broadcast could be >> received. I, living in North Fulton county, Georgia USA and watching the >> regional TV channel do not want severe storm warning alerts for the coastal >> parts of the state (some 300 miles away) interrupting my viewing. >> >> >> >> It looks there might be some differences between our expectations about >> how the emergency alert system works. The following is my high-level theory >> and hope it would make us on the same page. (Please correct it if I'm >> wrong.) >> >> >> >> * For a given emergency situation, the authority may only broadcast >> alerts with different levels to affected regions. So if a hurricane is >> about to hit NYC, an alert of hurricane warning may be broadcasted to NYC >> and its neighboring areas; whereas another alert with lower threat level, >> like watch or information, would be broadcasted to farther and less >> affected areas. And for other places where no effect is expected, such as >> Chicago, no alert is sent there at all. >> >> >> >> * The regional service provider, such as Comcast or Time Warner, may also >> help only forward the alerts to the right places because they appear to >> have more accurate geographical knowledge about where their service >> endpoints are. >> >> >> >> * Furthermore, even if it the alert signal really happens to reach the >> endpoint not in the target area (assuming the signal carries some info >> which can be used to identify the target area), it may be more reasonable >> to the underlying platform (TV stack, OS, etc.) to filter out those alerts, >> instead of exposing it to web contents and relying on their ability to >> gracefully handle it with their own geographical data collected via some >> other way. >> >> >> >> * Besides, the description is expected to be human readable info, which >> may also mention some general region info about this alert. For example, it >> might look like "Hurricane XXX will be coming this Thursday and affect the >> following areas: YYY county, ZZZ county, ...". So there still seems some >> ways not to confuse end users. >> >> >> >> Overall, the key point is: as long as the platform fires an event of >> emergency alert to the web content, we believe the alert is supposed to be >> there. In the case you mentioned, it's less likely a severe storm warning >> for areas in 300 miles away would be sent to your place if it's not in the >> target area of the alert. (Would a regional alert really consume the >> nationwide emergency channel to broadcast?) And if the alert source really >> broadcasts them outside the target area, there seems more ways to stop >> propagating it in the middle (service provider, platform, etc) before >> eventually exposing it to the web content. So in these cases, I'm still not >> convinced extra attributes for regional info need to be added to our event. >> >> >> >> Thoughts?! >> >> >> >> Sean >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Paul Higgs <paul.higgs@ericsson.com> >> wrote: >> >> HI Sean >> >> >> >> I still don’t believe we can overload the severityLevel in this way. >> >> The same content is broadcast to all receivers and the transport stream >> contains alert events for all regions where the broadcast could be >> received. I, living in North Fulton county, Georgia USA and watching the >> regional TV channel do not want severe storm warning alerts for the coastal >> parts of the state (some 300 miles away) interrupting my viewing. >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Sean Lin [mailto:selin@mozilla.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 08, 2015 5:38 AM >> >> >> *To:* Paul Higgs >> *Cc:* TV Control API Community Group >> *Subject:* Re: tvapi-ACTION-26: Contact sean and add emergency alert >> requirements to the spec >> >> >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> >> I believe regional information is quite important and certainly a >> requirement in the US (there may be different storm warning/alert levels >> for neighboring counties/regions) >> >> >> >> I believe attribute severityLevel can cover this. For alerts sent to >> different regions, they could be in different severity levels even when >> associated with the same event. The idea of this attribute was originated >> from [1], which also touches similar scenarios. >> >> >> >> PH> I don’t think it can. severityLevel could be “test”, “information”, >> “watch”, “warning”, “threat”… while location would be a geographic area. >> Quite often in the US you will see a “Tornado warning” issued for a few >> neighboring counties and “Tornado watch” issued for those neighboring them. >> >> >> >> SL> In this case I believe we may utilize "severity level" and the new >> attribute "type of emergency" we plan to add. "Type" may help identify the >> nature of the emergency like Tornado, Earthquake, etc; and "severity level" >> is used to distinguish the different threat levels across multiple regions. >> >> >> >> Thoughts?! >> >> >> >> Sean >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Paul Higgs <paul.higgs@ericsson.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sean >> >> >> >> I believe regional information is quite important and certainly a >> requirement in the US (there may be different storm warning/alert levels >> for neighboring counties/regions) >> >> >> >> I believe attribute severityLevel can cover this. For alerts sent to >> different regions, they could be in different severity levels even when >> associated with the same event. The idea of this attribute was originated >> from [1], which also touches similar scenarios. >> >> >> >> PH> I don’t think it can. severityLevel could be “test”, “information”, >> “watch”, “warning”, “threat”… while location would be a geographic area. >> Quite often in the US you will see a “Tornado warning” issued for a few >> neighboring counties and “Tornado watch” issued for those neighboring them. >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> *From:* Sean Lin [mailto:selin@mozilla.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 07, 2015 5:56 AM >> >> >> *To:* Paul Higgs >> *Cc:* TV Control API Community Group >> *Subject:* Re: tvapi-ACTION-26: Contact sean and add emergency alert >> requirements to the spec >> >> >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> >> I am not sure what to do with the Description if it is provided in an >> event with an application URL. Perhaps that behavior is implementation >> specific? >> >> >> >> Yup, it could be. :) >> >> >> >> I believe regional information is quite important and certainly a >> requirement in the US (there may be different storm warning/alert levels >> for neighboring counties/regions) >> >> >> >> I believe attribute severityLevel can cover this. For alerts sent to >> different regions, they could be in different severity levels even when >> associated with the same event. The idea of this attribute was originated >> from [1], which also touches similar scenarios. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sean >> >> >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/community/websignage/wiki/Web-based_Signage_Player_Emergency_Profile#Classification_of_severity_level_for_presentation >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Paul Higgs <paul.higgs@ericsson.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sean >> >> >> >> On type of emergency – great >> >> >> >> I am not sure what to do with the Description if it is provided in an >> event with an application URL. Perhaps that behavior is implementation >> specific? >> >> >> >> I believe regional information is quite important and certainly a >> requirement in the US (there may be different storm warning/alert levels >> for neighboring counties/regions) >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> *From:* Sean Lin [mailto:selin@mozilla.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 02, 2015 6:02 AM >> *To:* Paul Higgs >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: tvapi-ACTION-26: Contact sean and add emergency alert >> requirements to the spec >> >> >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the feedback. Please see the comment inline. >> >> >> >> · DOMString? severityLevel – I agree with the “localized >> definition” of this, but don’t we also need some attribute that describes >> the nature of the emergency, i.e. “Earthquake”, “Child Adbuction” >> >> Yeah, we may add this. >> >> · DOMString? Description – is this intended to be human >> readable? What is the code that receives this event supposed to do with >> this message/information. >> >> It's intended to be human readable, and may be directly used as the >> displayable message. >> >> · Do we need some information on where the alert applies to, or >> do we only expect it to be only delivered in-band or out-of-band to >> affected regions? >> >> So far our emergency alert requirements haven't addressed this. Do we >> have a use case which really needs this? Or we may consider to leave it for >> now and open for enhancement if necessary. >> >> Any thoughts?! >> >> Sean >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Paul Higgs <paul.higgs@ericsson.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sean >> >> >> >> Thanks, the changes you provide are a good start to having a well defined >> “emergency alert” interface, but I think some more details are required. >> >> >> >> · DOMString? severityLevel – I agree with the “localized >> definition” of this, but don’t we also need some attribute that describes >> the nature of the emergency, i.e. “Earthquake”, “Child Adbuction” >> >> · DOMString? Description – is this intended to be human >> readable? What is the code that receives this event supposed to do with >> this message/information. >> >> · Do we need some information on where the alert applies to, or >> do we only expect it to be only delivered in-band or out-of-band to >> affected regions? >> >> >> >> I would suggest that, if possible, people read the ATIS-0800010 >> “Emergency Alert Provisioning Specification” [1] which covers North >> American requirements and ATIS-0800012 “IPTV Emergency Alert Metadata >> Specification” [2] which covers the implementation of those requirements. >> >> >> >> Some other reading would be >> >> [3] EB Docket 04-296, First Report and Order and Further Notice of >> Proposed Rulemaking, Review of the Emergency Alert System, FCC 05-191, >> November 10, 2005. >> >> [4] Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 47 Part 11--Emergency Alert >> System, October 1, 2005. >> >> [5] EB Docket 04-296, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of >> Proposed Rulemaking, Review of the Emergency Alert System, FCC 07-109; >> Released July 12, 2007. >> >> [6] Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 6-4, Counties >> and Equivalent Entities of the United States, Its Possessions, and >> Associated Areas, 31 August 1990, with editorial corrections January 2005. >> >> [7] OASIS Standard CAP-V1.1, Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), October >> 2005. Copyright © OASIS Open 2003. All Rights Reserved. Based in part on >> prior work contributed by the Common Alerting Protocol Working Group, >> copyright 2002-2003 Art Botterell for the Common Alerting Protocol Working >> Group. >> >> [8] SCTE 18 2013, Emergency Alert Messaging for Cable. >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> [1] https://www.atis.org/docstore/product.aspx?id=22927 >> >> [2] https://www.atis.org/docstore/product.aspx?id=22946 >> >> [3] available from the Federal Communications Commission. < >> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ > >> >> [4] available from the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. < >> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/ > >> >> [5] available from the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. < >> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/ > >> >> [6] available from the Information Technology Laboratory. < >> http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip6-4.htm > >> >> [7] available from the Organization for the Advancement of Structured >> Information Standards (OASIS). < http://www.oasis-open.org/ > >> >> [8] available from the Society for Cable Telecommunications Engineers >> (SCTE). < http://www.scte.org/FileDownload.aspx?A=3512 > >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Sean Lin [mailto:selin@mozilla.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 6:09 AM >> *To:* Paul Higgs >> *Cc:* TV Control API Community Group >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: tvapi-ACTION-26: Contact sean and add emergency alert >> requirements to the spec >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I've reflected the adjustments to our spec [1] for now. Please feel free >> to share concerns if you find something uncovered. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sean >> >> >> >> [1] http://w3c.github.io/tvapi/spec/#tvemergencyalertedevent-interface >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Sean Lin <selin@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the feedback. I'm thinking to adjust the event as below. >> >> >> >> 1. What event/parameters do we signal to inform that the emergency >> announcement is over? >> >> It appears the attribute 'severityLevel' could be nullable. So it implies >> the emergency is over when the attribute is null. >> >> >> >> 2. The event only signals a channel could be switched to, however, >> it could also be possible that the alert information is available at a URL >> (textual “storm warning” etc). The requirements for all national bodies >> should be investigated to ensure global applicability of this API. >> >> We may add an extra nullable attribute 'url' for now to provide this >> flexibility. Yet as you mentioned, we'll need to ensure global >> applicability someday. >> >> >> >> Thoughts?! >> >> >> >> Sean >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Paul Higgs <paul.higgs@ericsson.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sean >> >> >> >> This event based approach for signaling of an emergency probably the >> right direction to proceed, just a couple of items to consider >> >> 1. What event/parameters do we signal to inform that the emergency >> announcement is over? >> >> 2. The event only signals a channel could be switched to, however, >> it could also be possible that the alert information is available at a URL >> (textual “storm warning” etc). The requirements for all national bodies >> should be investigated to ensure global applicability of this API. >> >> >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> *From:* Sean Lin [mailto:selin@mozilla.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:27 AM >> *To:* TV Control API Community Group >> *Subject:* Re: tvapi-ACTION-26: Contact sean and add emergency alert >> requirements to the spec >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I slightly revised the spec and added emergency alert to it. Please feel >> free to share any comments on it. >> >> >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> >> Sean >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:47 PM, TV Control API Community Group Issue >> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >> >> tvapi-ACTION-26: Contact sean and add emergency alert requirements to the >> spec >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/actions/26 >> >> Assigned to: Bin Hu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sean Lin >> >> Mozilla Taiwan >> >> selin@mozilla.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sean Lin >> >> Mozilla Taiwan >> >> selin@mozilla.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sean Lin >> >> Mozilla Taiwan >> >> selin@mozilla.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sean Lin >> >> Mozilla Taiwan >> >> selin@mozilla.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sean Lin >> >> Mozilla Taiwan >> >> selin@mozilla.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sean Lin >> >> Mozilla Taiwan >> >> selin@mozilla.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sean Lin >> >> Mozilla Taiwan >> >> selin@mozilla.com >> >> >> > > > > -- > Sean Lin > Mozilla Taiwan > selin@mozilla.com > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 09:07:28 UTC