- From: Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 01:18:08 +0900
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
available at:
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-webtv-minutes.html
also as text below.
Daniel
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Web and TV IG - Media APIs TF call
05 Feb 2014
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Feb/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Kaz, Giuseppe, Skim, Giri, Sheau, Daniel, Wook, Bin,
Cyril, Mark_Vickers
Regrets
JC_Verdie
Chair
Bin
Scribe
Daniel
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]action items
2. [6]Follow up discussion on Tuner API group
* [7]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: Daniel
<scribe> scribenick: ddavis
Bin_Hu: 2 weeks ago we had a short meeting and we have some
outstanding items, so let's review them.
<scribe> Meeting: Web & TV IG: Media APIs Task Force
action items
<kaz_> [8]tracker
[8] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/7
Bin_Hu: We can close the first action item and open a new one
at another time if necessary.
<kaz_> close action-125
<trackbot> Closed action-125.
Bin_Hu: Closing action item 125
<kaz_> action-178?
<trackbot> action-178 -- Giuseppe Pascale to Start editing a
req. document for this tf -- due 2013-12-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/178
[9] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/178
<kaz_> bin: looking at the wiki
<giuseppep> use cases
[10]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases
[10] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases
<giuseppep> req:
[11]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements
[11] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements
<kaz_> bin: the wiki and the spreadsheet are up to date
Bin_Hu: The wiki and spreadsheet are up to date
... I think we can summarise what we have and then just point
to the raw material that we already have.
... Any objections?
No objections
Bin_Hu: We will make a summary with cross-reference links to
the gap analysis/requirements spreadsheet.
<CyrilRa> @kaz: I am on call
Bin_Hu: Looks like we have a decision on what to do for our
Note.
... Looking at the wiki, I'm looking at the history of our
activity.
... We had use case collection started in April and were all
submitted by August.
... So it takes about four months to collect use cases.
... After that, it took a couple of conference calls to decide
which use cases to include.
... Then one month to finalise the requirements and another
month to finalise the gap analysis.
... The gap analysis was finished in December in a call on 18th
December.
... We're now at the stage of concluding the Note.
... So in reality, about 6 months from concluding use cases to
publishing a Note.
... Altogether about 10 months for the whole process from
collecting initial use cases.
... So maybe the next iteration could be completed by the end
of this year (2014). If so, we can avoid the end-of-year
holiday disruption.
... Maybe we could aim for TPAC this year which would give us a
buffer before the holiday.
+1
giuseppep: It depends on the input we get.
... It's clear that we're not working on specs, so what we do
is a starting point for discussion.
... Based on how many new inputs there are next time, we could
proceed faster or slower.
Bin_Hu: I agree it's a moving target but we should have a rough
plan.
<kaz> [ note: our current charter expires on 20 Feb. 2015 ]
Bin_Hu: Overall, the schedule is a very rough estimation but
what is a realistic deadline for submitting use cases?
giuseppep: After the workshop is good so maybe say mid-April?
Bin_Hu: Mid-April sounds good.
giuseppep: I can add that to the wiki
Bin_Hu: OK, so we should get input after the workshop in March
and we can then see if the schedule is realistic.
giuseppep: So keep the timing roughly the same as last time?
Bin_Hu: If we get some use cases by the middle of April I'd
suggest that sometime in June or July we can finalise the use
cases.
... Then in August we can finish the gap analysis.
ddavis: Things tend to be quiet during July/August
Bin_Hu: Let's say end of September, then.
+1
<giuseppep>
[12]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs#Iterations_an
d_Timeline
[12]
https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs#Iterations_and_Timeline
Bin_Hu: We should be in a good position to cope with the two
big holiday periods.
... Any other comments?
gmandyam: I see the wiki hasn't been updated since November.
<kaz> [ use case wiki at:
[13]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases ]
[13] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases
giuseppep: We're keeping it open for finishing the current
work. We're done with it but have to conclude it (publish the
Note).
... We need to allow new use cases to be added for the next
iteration.
s/sluse case wikil//
Bin_Hu: And a reminder that the schedule is a moving target and
may be changed.
... So closing action item 183.
Follow up discussion on Tuner API group
Bin_Hu: Everything has been quiet since the new year.
giuseppep: The main question is what is the output of this
discussion.
<kaz> close action-183
<trackbot> Closed action-183.
giuseppep: Is the Tuner API the only use case so far?
<kaz> ddavis: multiscreen advertisement and water marking?
ddavis: Getting confused...
<kaz> giuseppep: I meant the ones for the first iteration
Bin_Hu: There may be more gaps than that.
<Sheau> not just watermarking but also fingerprinting.
Bin_Hu: Some of those gaps are address by their relevant specs.
... We need to communicate with the relevant groups and fill
gaps in existing specs.
... And also look at where we need new specs, for example with
a community group.
giuseppep: If we do this exercise we should make sure we have
proper follow up.
Bin_Hu: Some of the discussion was on the name of the group.
giuseppep: I think we can do this discussion and finalise the
Task Force note in parallel.
Bin_Hu: I think Kaz is going to find out how to create the
community group.
giuseppep: I think it's OK even if you're not a W3C member to
create a community group. When 5 people have joined it begins.
kaz: We also record the final decision to create the group in
these minutes.
<kaz> [14]Community Groups site (click "START A COMMUNITY
GROUP" to create a CG :)
[14] http://www.w3.org/community/
ddavis: Yes, there was unfinished discussions about the naming
giuseppep: So we should figure out the scope first and then the
naming.
<kaz> +1
giuseppep: If I remember correctly, the scope is to control a
device through a web API.
Sheau: There was an issue about the definition of "tuner".
... In the IP era, the concept of tuner has evolved greatly. So
we need to make the definition clear.
giuseppep: If I have an HTML5-based API how do I integrate the
video tuner into my application?
Sheau: We should establish whether tuner is referred to in the
more traditional RF way or in a more general way.
giuseppep: If we make things too generic it's more difficult to
solve the problem.
... It's easier to have a group focussed on a specific problem.
Bin_Hu: Everything is moving very fast so if we limit it to
broadcast tuner only we may not attract more participants to
this group.
... That could limit interest in the group.
... If we can expand the scope to a logical tuner that can
accept all video streams, we may get more people to
participate.
... Set-top boxes can also have the role of a tuner.
... The user doesn't care if the signal is from IPTV or
broadcast.
... Also, we won't have much more difference from the
application developer's difference.
giuseppep: What is the concept we're trying to model, is it
channels?
Bin_Hu: Maybe it's a TV channel, maybe it's from an IPTV box.
ddavis: Mark_Vickers says it's a naming issue - tuners and
channels may not be hardware tuners only and traditional TV
channels only.
Sheau: I agree with Mark's statement.
... We have multiple interfaces to media sources.
... There may be addition sources - how can we be able to
compare hardware tuners to software aggregators that have
logical channels?
... We should have a way to identify these.
giuseppep: I agree that it should be more generic and we have a
naming problem.
... How can we put this in words to identify the scope.
Sheau: Are you thinking about media selection that Kaz
mentioned?
giuseppep: I don't know the best way to phrase this.
Bin_Hu: Daniel, maybe you can capture what Mark mentioned?
... How about you make a record capturing the essence that the
scope is a more general tuner api.
... You can put it in the Task Force wiki.
... Then in the next conference call we can agree on the scope.
... We'll probably have different ideas for names but we can
come to an agreement.
<scribe> ACTION: ddavis to put scope of Tuner API into task
force wiki. [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Put scope of tuner api into
task force wiki. [on Daniel Davis - due 2014-02-12].
Bin_Hu: In the next meeting, we'll have 2 things - review draft
of Note, and discussion of scope of new Tuner API community
group.
... Any other business?
... I think we can adjourn the meeting.
... An effective call today. Talk to you in two weeks...
giuseppep: Daniel, if you write something, please send it to
the mailing list so we can discuss it there.
Bin_Hu: Thanks all. Bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: ddavis to put scope of Tuner API into task force
wiki. [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 16:18:48 UTC