- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 17:37:35 +0200
- To: public-web-and-tv <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANiD0krdCdYWb4LhF2zYfRrYN9cdCR8Z-Atr-oOQDap5_cGRyw@mail.gmail.com>
Available here
http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-webtv-minutes.html
And as text below. *Can I ask people attending the call to review them and
point out errors or omissions?* I did my best to take notes but a couple of
times I was lost as I was trying to follow the discussion and take notes at
the same time :)
cheers
/g
-----------------------------------------------------------
Web&TV IG - GGIE TF
08 Apr 2015
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Kaz, digitaldale, Bill_Rose, glennd, Paul_Higgs,
Leslie_Daigle, jianz, giuseppe, So_Vang, Nilo, jhelman,
Mark
Regrets
Chair
Glenn
Scribe
giuseppe
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Review & approval of March 11th call minutes
2. [5]Review of new discovery use cases
* [6]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<glennd> Agenda:
<glennd> 1. Review & approval of March 11th call minutes
([7]http://www.w3.org/2015/03/11-webtv-minutes.html)
[7] http://www.w3.org/2015/03/11-webtv-minutes.html)
<glennd> 2. Agenda Bash
<glennd> 3. Review of new discovery use cases:
[8]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/User_Dis
covery
[8] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/User_Discovery
Review & approval of March 11th call minutes
glenn: this is the only call in a month as we skipped last call
... does anyone object to approve last meeting minutes? no
objection, so approved
Review of new discovery use cases
glenn: new use cases around user discovery content
... let's go over the usecases, I would like people while
looking at the use cases to think if there are gaps in existing
standard work
... that prevents us from covering these use cases
... let's bill present the new UCs
<kaz> [9]Use Case Wiki
[9] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/User_Discovery
[10]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/User_Dis
covery#User_Discovery-UC-1_User_Search_for_Content_Including_Cl
ient_Information
[10]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/User_Discovery#User_Discovery-UC-1_User_Search_for_Content_Including_Client_Information
bill: UC1
the basic idea is to include some client information in order
to improve the search results
so a user would usually include search criteria like title,
actors etc while the client could automatically append
information on codecs, license etc
this would avoid search results that cannot ultimately be
played for whatever reason
bill: there could be a difference between the license that the
user have and one that the client have. I'm not sure
glenn: I'm not sure there is a standard to represent either of
them
... I'm not aware of any device profile
paul: maybe something in DLNA, loosely
bill: yes there should be something in DLNA
... but that is for the home network, not sure if that
information leaves the HN
(bill and paul discuss DLNA profiles)
so: there is also some discussion in ATSC about this, maybe
there is an opportunity for some coordination
yyy: is there something in bluetooth?
glenn: not sure, but also a good place to look
... so it seems we have identified a potential gap, i.e. there
isn't a standard to define what a device support
... and also there isn't a standard way to respond to a request
that would include a device profile
... also there is no standard to send this device profile to a
server
leslie: is it time also to discuss privacy?
bill: yes, I added in the UC the possibility that the user
could configure the device not to send all the device
information
... to preserve privacy
glenn: there are probably different levels of information and
hence privacy
... services I'm subscribed to VS device capabilities for
examples
... there could also be restrictions based on the networks I'm
on, e.g. home network VS out of home
bill: so at least two level of privacy, user client and network
provider
... there is also a difference on where different info get
configured /selected, e.g. an app UI VS device UI
glenn: from a device standpoint, I may allow an app to search
on different networks and inside the device aggregate the
results
... when we come back to discuss about network layer, would be
good to discuss a UC around caching in case of multiple
networks e.g. when a device have 3 networks but local cache
only have access to two
bill: another option, more privacy savy, is to get all the
metadata and make the decision on what can be played locally
glenn: let's move to UC2
bill: UC2 is about using a second screen (mobile) to search for
content I want to watch on my first screen (TV)
... so is related to the previous one but here the device
sending out information is not the same client playing the
content
... to do this we probably need to get the TV profile in a
similar way we needed before
... actually looking at UC2 again is not what I just described
... is more about using the tablet/phone to control UI the TV
... so this is actually simple and similar to UC1
giuseppe: is it worth to have UC2 as a separate UC? can we
merge it with UC1
glenn: maybe still worth, in UC2 could have some privacy
concerns,
... maybe I'm at a hotel room and I don't want to share my
device preferences with the hotel TV set
... is there a standard to control a TV?
giuseppe: I agree there could be a gap here but aren't we
extending the scope too much?
glenn: good point, but we can first collect the use cases and
then make a final filtering at the end
... based on priorities
... move on on UC3
bill: so UC3, I have multiple devices in my home
... and I want to find content that is suitable for multiple
devices
... e.g. I have a movie I want to watch
and I want to be able to make some sort of supersearch to know
if that is playable on any of the device in the home
scribe: one option is to do multiple searches
... but that would be more cumbersome and I would have to
repeat it for each device
... so would be more convenient to do one research for all, and
would be also good to do it once but capture all the
differences, e.g. in network connections and capabilites
glenn: so we need to be able to express playback capabilites,
network capabilities, offline/online capabilites, in home/out
of home capabilities
... an immediate gap I can see I'm not able to disambiguate
between different search results, e.g. I have spiderman DVD VS
spiderman on ABC
... so we don't have a standard to express different offers for
the same content
bill: also from a content perspective, e.g. ad based VS pay
... now if I do local matching and filtering, I need to get all
the info
<ldaigle> internet.net or whatever
<ldaigle> zero rating
<mark_vickers> who is here?
dale: we should also consider sponsorship
... ... e.g. if I'm part of a sponsor group I may get some
content for free or at a better bandwith
glenn: so one think we would luck is a way to express a
sponsorhip model
bill: would be a more complex version of the cost option
glenn: no more comments on UC1-3
<kaz> [ web&tv ig charter includes CEA and ATSC in [11]the list
of external groups to liaise ]
[11] http://www.w3.org/2012/11/webTVIGcharter.html#external-groups
<kaz> [ while [12]the liaison table has ATSC but not CEA ]
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
glenn: AP to explore potential liaison with CEA
glenn: I encourage all new members to read the GGIE main page
for a better understanding of what we want to do and how we
want to work, see here
[13]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF
... in a nutshell, we now are trying to collect gaps, later we
envision to send request to various groups
[13] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 15:38:24 UTC