- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:41:08 +0200
- To: public-tvcontrol@w3.org
Hi TV Control WG participants,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-tvapi-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
TV Control WG Call
23 Aug 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tvcontrol/2016Aug/0010.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-tvapi-irc
Attendees
Present
Chris_Needham, Francois_Daoust, Kazuyuki_Ashimura,
Ryan_Davis, Steve_Morris, Youngsun_Ryu, Yann(Eurofins),
Tatsuya_Igarashi, Jean-Pierre_Evain
Regrets
Chair
Chris
Scribe
Francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Call for Consensus for publication as FPWD
2. [6]F2F meeting at TPAC and access control discussion
3. [7]API and spec changes to support radio
4. [8]The TVSource and TVTuner objects
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
Chris: I notice that Alex is not around today, so we cannot
really talk about the radio use cases he's working on.
Call for Consensus for publication as FPWD
Chris: In previous calls, we said that the only thing blocking
publication as FPWD was the lack of introduction.
... I wrote one.
<cpn> [11]http://w3c.github.io/tvcontrol-api/
[11] http://w3c.github.io/tvcontrol-api/
Chris: Essentially, I've added an abstract that describes the
overall goal of the specification. Next change is in the Status
of This Document section to note that privacy and security
concerns have not been addressed and that such a mechanism
might change the API surface.
... Then the main change is the Introduction that describes the
various concepts.
... If you haven't reviewed these changes yet, I encourage you
to do so.
... Any other issues with the spec that you feel we need to
address before we move to FPWD?
[none heard]
Chris: My next step will thus to send a Call for Consensus to
the mailing-list to publish the spec as First Public Working
Draft.
... How long should the CfC be?
Kaz: one or two weeks.
Chris: OK, I'll leave two weeks.
F2F meeting at TPAC and access control discussion
<cpn> [12]https://www.w3.org/wiki/TV_Control/Meetings/2016-09
[12] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TV_Control/Meetings/2016-09
Chris: I've constructed an agenda for our F2F on Tuesday 20th
September in Lisbon.
... Any feedback or comment on the way the agenda is
constructed?
... I tried to leave the radio discussion to the afternoon, so
that if Ryan wants to join us remotely, then that's hopefully
at a friendly time for you.
Ryan: That would work.
<igarashi> +q
Chris: We'll try our best to stick to the schedule, but it
depends on how things proceed during the morning session.
... What I'd like to do is: give an introduction to the API for
people in the room that may not be familiar with it. And then
go through the list of open issues on GitHub. With some help
from Francois, I tried to group these issues into categories,
so that we can structure the discussion.
... The main topic for the morning is the overall architecture
for the spec.
... This is really looking at the relationship between TVSource
and TVTuner, as well as a few other issues listed in the
agenda.
... Most of the morning should be on such discussions.
... Then, after lunch, things that are access control
implications: channel scanning, parental lock, etc.
... And then the radio use cases and API following that.
... Some discussion on how we relate schema.org metadata with
our spec, and whether we need to define any mapping to
underlying broadcast protocols.
... Please do take a look at the issues and provide comments on
GitHub so that we can hopefully agree on a conclusion at TPAC.
Igarashi-san: I'm interested in access control. Access control
to retrieve the program and EPG information?
Chris: Yes.
Igarashi-san: Some may want to restrict access to this
information.
Chris: Indeed. I discussed this internally with my colleagues
and there would be a concern to allow arbitrary origins to
access that information.
... What I've done is list these concerns in the requirements
page.
Jean-Pierre: You have some information about the program and
you want to protect it. But until then? At some point, you want
to publish that info so that people can find the programs.
Igarashi-san: My question is whether this is on the agenda for
the TPAC. I can provide some input to these discussions.
Jean-Pierre: I've been working on metadata for TV for years.
Very often, broadcasters say that the information is very
sensitive, but at the same time, it's usually available on the
Web, so what's the point?
... I'll be in Lisbon to discuss.
Chris: As a content provider, we want some degree of control as
to how the content is presented. In the current world where we
build our own channel-bound applications, then we can do that.
... The question is on whether any arbitrary web site can
present the tuner stream.
... What precisely content providers may want to keep control
on, that's the question.
... In the TV world, you have the broadcast-related /
broadcast-independent border.
... Whether that model should be applied to the Web is an open
question.
Kaz: In that case, it might make sense to have a joint
discussion with the GGIE Task Force and the Web and TV IG.
... The GGIE Task Force has been working on identification
issues.
Chris: Do you think we should add this to the agenda?
Kaz: Maybe we can have that discussion on Monday during the Web
and TV IG.
Igarashi-san: I would like to clarify the current consensus. Do
you believe that this should be more open than in the HbbTV
world? Does it mean that arbitrary web pages can access the
program information and present the content?
Chris: Yes, when I say "open", that's what I am implying.
Igarashi-san: That's issue #13?
Chris: Exactly
<kaz> [13]issue 13
[13] https://github.com/w3c/tvcontrol-api/issues/13
Steve: In terms of EPG data, there's probably no problem
exposing that. In terms of presentation, the rationale is
around commercial issues where, if some Web page displays ads
on its own, there may be licensing issues.
... [scribe missed 3rd issue]
Igarashi-san: Some broadcasters are sill concerned about
exposing EPG data, I think.
... I worry about that. Of course, open APIs are good for other
people, but some stakeholders may not be happy with that.
Jean-Pierre: At some point in time in the process and workflow,
you have metadata available somewhere and you would like that
to be sealed until you need to publish that metadata for people
to use it.
... As soon as you do it, restriction becomes useless.
Igarashi-san: The current mechanism is very restricted. Access
control should not be done by the web page, rather per action
basis.
... Accessing the channels information is OK for instance.
Jean-Pierre: I think we need to work on the workflow. Two
cases, you want to restrict access control, or you want to
advertise it. In both cases, you'll need to publish the
information in some way. I'm a bit lost.
Igarashi-san: You're not ;) I think that's an important topic
to have on the agenda to discuss at TPAC.
Jean-Pierre: That's relevant, yes.
Chris: It is on the agenda for TPAC. It's more the afternoon
session, but we may touch on it in the morning. Most of the
issues are inter-related.
... I think Steve gave a good summary. From a BBC perspective,
we would certainly be worried about presentation of ads along
our content.
... I think channels access is more a user privacy concern.
Enumerating the list of channels is problematic from that
perspective.
Igarashi-san: How about the EPG and Program information?
... Is it ok for everyone to see that?
... I think it depends on the business model.
... I don't have strong requirements on metadata from a TV
manufacturer perspective. However, if that's an issue for
broadcasters, we need to take it into account.
Jean-Pierre: I think we need a general discussion on metadata
on the agenda. There's a bit of history there. There are many
branding issues (e.g. ensuring that the user is aware of the
provenance of the content at all times).
Igarashi-san: Access control to the EPG metadata. Aren't these
architecture issues?
Chris: I think it will affect the architecture.
... I don't think we can resolve this here and now.
... I need to put some more thoughts from our perspective. I'd
like to here from other content providers as well to get more
consensus on this particular topic.
... The action that I take away today is to adjust the TPAC F2F
agenda to create some space in the morning to discuss metadata.
... More comments on this now?
Igarashi-san: Is there any Web and TV IG meeting at TPAC?
Kaz: Yes, there will be one on Monday, where we could discuss
with the GGIE TF.
Igarashi-san: Who is active in GGIE?
Kaz: NBC Universal (Glenn Deen, Bill Rose)
Jean-Pierre: When I registered for TPAC, that sort of
particular joint meetings, where will they be announced?
Kaz: We're still gathering information.
Jean-Pierre: How would you publicize the results? Through the
reflector?
Kaz: Yes, I can send a message to the TV IG list and updated
the TV IG wiki. And Chris can update the TV Control WG wiki as
well.
Igarashi-san: In terms of requirements, we could discuss with
Web and TV IG, e.g. access control for program and EPG. But we
should be careful on discussion of the architectural solution.
... That should be done by the WG.
... For patent policy reasons, among other things.
... We should only discuss about requirements with the Web and
TV IG.
Chris: Thank you, yes, it is a good idea. If we could get some
feedback from the IG on these requirements, then that could get
us a better understanding of the needs, and the WG could then
work on a solution.
Igarashi-san: We could have a requirements session on the
agenda.
Chris: OK, Kaz and I will take that offline.
Kaz: Given that this is related to security and privacy, maybe
it would make sense to have another joint session with Web of
Things IG and Automotive BG/WG.
Chris: For the Automotive, Ryan shared the details of the
security work that has been done there.
... I'd like to read through that to get a better understanding
as to what has been done.
... My main concern is around scheduling these joint meetings.
Igarashi-san: Same comment as before, that should stick to use
cases and requirements.
Kaz: We can restrict the discussion to use cases and
requirements for security management.
Igarashi-san: Before discussing the solution or use cases, the
WG needs to agree first on which requirements it needs to
support. This means hearing from other broadcasters.
... This is not a generic security issue. More a
business-related security issue. Are broadcasters fine with
exposing the data and content?
... My interest is gathering requirements from broadcasters.
Chris: I realize that we're running out of time.
API and spec changes to support radio
<inserted> Kaz: in that case, I can ask the Web&TV guys about
their opinions as well.
Chris: It may be that supporting radio is just as simple as
renaming the interfaces to drop the "TV" prefix.
... But then Alex is also talking about bringing some
radio-specific parts
... e.g. slideshows that may be broadcasted along with the
radio stream.
<kaz> [14]editor's draft
[14] http://w3c.github.io/tvcontrol-api/
Chris: Which could lead to more adjustments needed to the API.
... I hope Alex will be able to come back and present some
analysis there.
... The other thing that Alex said he would do was review the
Genivi work.
... Again something I hope we can get back to at TPAC.
Ryan: I'm still working on an analysis between Genivi IVI and
TV. I'm still in the middle of that. Hopefully by the end of
this week, I'll be able to share something.
... I haven't talked to Alex. Maybe we can just share the
results and compare our notes.
The TVSource and TVTuner objects
Chris: The final topic that I wanted to touch upon today is
issue #4.
... Some good discussion on GitHub.
... But we're running out of time here.
<kaz> [15]issue 4
[15] https://github.com/w3c/tvcontrol-api/issues/4
Chris: What I think we may be missing here is descriptions of
usage of these interfaces.
... There may be a need to redesign the API to expose the
functionalities better.
... The original spec was designed by Mozilla but there are not
in the group anymore, so we don't always know why some design
decisions were made.
... I know that Francois has been looking at possible
similarities with WebRTC, getUserMedia, isolated MediaStream.
... That should trigger good discussions at TPAC.
Steve: I agree with that. I cannot attend TPAC unfortunately,
but can attend the meeting remotely.
Chris: Excellent!
... Any other business?
... There's a lot of food for thoughts in what we've discussed
today. I'll investigate internally to get a broadcaster's
perspective.
... I look forward to meeting those who can join us at the
meeting.
[Call adjourned]
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2016 14:41:28 UTC