RE: [GGIE] Minutes for June 17th meeting

Hello Daniel,

Thanks for the notes.

If I understand well the reference to AMWA is about covering identifiers?

If yes, not at all. I do work a lot with AMWA and AMWA is not managing identifiers.

Unique IDs are: ISAN, EIDR and AdID for advertising spots.

However, it is difficult to use them as such to uniquely identify content as you may need to identify content in the context of a service (different providers may provide access to the same content possibly under different rights).

This is why it is important to consider using the TV-Anytime CRID which combine a service provider namespace and either an ISAN, or EIDR (derived from DOI but which URI friendly syntax should be used) and AdID.

Jean-Pierre 
________________________________________
From: Daniel Davis [ddavis@w3.org]
Sent: 29 June 2015 18:12
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: [GGIE] Minutes for June 17th meeting

Hello all,

Here are the minutes from the GGIE call on June 17th:
http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-webtv-minutes.html

and pasted in full below.

Please note the next call will be on Wednesday July 1st from 11:00 am
Eastern Time (US). See here for the Webex call details:
https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page#Teleconferences_.2F_Meetings

And for reference, it's possible to read minutes from all previous
calls/meetings are here:
https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page#Meeting_Minutes

With regards,
Daniel

==========

                               - DRAFT -

                      Web and TV IG: GGIE meeting

17 Jun 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-webtv-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Gleen Dean, Bill Rose, Mark Vickers, Giuseppe Pascale,
          Dale Rochon, Giri Mandyam, Leslie Daigle, Paul Higgs,
          Nilo Mitra, Andrew Zamler-Carhart, Kaz Ashimura, Yosuke
          Funahashi, Daniel Davis

   Regrets

   Chair
          Glenn

   Scribe
          Bill

Contents

     * [3]Glenn reviewed the responses from NHK and JBA to the Use
       Cases and general scope, process, etc.
          + [4]Standardization Process: How will GGIE work with
            other SDOs?
          + [5]Involving streaming media stakeholders: e.g.
            YouTube/Google, Netflix.
          + [6]Overlaps with TV-Anytime in concept/scope
            architecture. CRID (Content Reference ID), user
            metadata, authority, resolution providers, etc.
          + [7]General Comments on UCs: What are the boundaries of
            the ecosystem (UCs) we are addressing?
          + [8]How to involve non-professional users?
          + [9]Viewer reviews on video content can be considered
            as a type of metadata for video content (Cid)
            generated by users (Uid)
          + [10]Terminal or household ID sometimes more convenient
            or fit actual UCs better than user ID.
          + [11]Any other business
     * [12]Next call
     __________________________________________________________

   I'll be joining the call soon. I'm in the Zakim call for the
   first few minutes in case anyone dials into it.

   <azamlerc_> Hi folks

   <digitaldale> Howdy

   <azamlerc_> Andrew Zamler-Carhart from Cisco, currently in
   Japan

   <azamlerc_> (just dialing in now)

   <glennd> andrew can you hear me on weber?

   <glennd> webex?

   <yosuke>
   [13]https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5323f17526166cdad8fb3
   61428128644

     [13]
https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5323f17526166cdad8fb361428128644

   <kaz> scribe: Bill

   <yosuke> reference

   <digitaldale> so we would be describing multiple technologies
   to be utilized for these use cases

Glenn reviewed the responses from NHK and JBA to the Use Cases and
general scope, process, etc.

   See
   [14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2015
   Jun/0005.html for the questions NHK/JBA posed and GGIE’s
   responses including additional comments/edits from today’s
   call.

     [14]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2015Jun/0005.html

Standardization Process: How will GGIE work with other SDOs?

   <glennd> GGIE will deliver GAP analysis to WEB and TV IG during
   TPAC/Sapporo on missing features and recommendations as to
   which SDO’s scope aligns.

   <glennd> Suggestions: Develop prototype charters describing
   features we are asking them to consider working on.

   <yosuke> Takes a long time to get liaison. Should identify
   potential SDOs and have members that support the work initiate
   discussions within the SDO.

   Glenn noted that other organizations are beginning to discuss
   similar issues to GGIE’s work.

Involving streaming media stakeholders: e.g. YouTube/Google, Netflix.

   <glennd> No response from Netflix to date. If we have any
   contacts at Netflix Glenn will speak to them. Problem has been
   finding the right contact.

   <glennd> Clearly some companies have solved some of these
   issues to overcome gaps/problems. Issues: It may be seen as a
   competitive advantage they are unwilling to share with
   competitors/SDOs.

   Sharing metadata across stakeholders

   Scalability

   How to move intelligence to edge.

   Action Item - Yosuke: Will speak to reps to find out to whom we
   should speak at Google and arrange conversation or Glenn.

   Action Item: Daniel will look for contacts at Netflix and
   Google through W3C AC.

Overlaps with TV-Anytime in concept/scope architecture. CRID (Content
Reference ID), user metadata, authority, resolution providers, etc.

   <glennd> Many concepts in GGIE are borrowed from related
   efforts. Goal is not to reinvent but to see what features
   currently exist and identify what can be added.

   Question (Call-in User 3 – name unknown): Are we going to
   investigate all available technologies and identify gaps?

   <glennd> We are not in a position to investigate all
   technologies, etc. We can identify what we are aware of that is
   already in use to meet the UCs and identify GAPS based on what
   we are aware of.

   <digitaldale> Will there be cases where there are multiple
   solutions to a UC?

   <glennd> We are limited in scope to use-cases and not specific
   technology selection. We expect there are many solutions to
   choose from. We will identify common features across the
   technologies that enable the UC to be implemented as well as
   GAPS/features that are not available via standards. Proprietary
   solutions would not constitute a standards-based solution.

   <yosuke> Japanese companies/organizations see overlap between
   GGIE and TV-Anytime at a high level.

   <glennd> Our UCs are broad and may overlap in some areas, not
   others.

   <yosuke> We are identifying things we want to be able to do in
   the future. Some UCs are currently being implemented, others
   extend the concepts/solutions.

   <glennd> GGIE is looking at end-to-end digital video. Includes
   UCs capturing what is done today, as well as looking forward.
   By understanding what can be done today we hope to identify
   GAPs that may preclude new features/services to meet future
   needs.

   <gmandyam> Would an example showing gaps be helpful?

   <glennd> Have not yet done the GAP analysis yet so not at that
   point yet.

   Action Item: Giri will draft some wording and distribute it to
   the reflector. (Glenn: make it clear that the work was done in
   another W3C group, not GGIE).

General Comments on UCs: What are the boundaries of the ecosystem
(UCs) we are addressing?

   <glennd> Are there boundaries?

   <MarkVickers> Is it appropriate to state GGIE’s scope is on the
   entire E2E?

   <glennd> There is a lot that is out of scope. Does not include
   features of particular steps in the E2E process which are only
   local to those steps. GGIE will not work on editing, dubbing,
   etc., except where there is an impact on the larger E2E
   workflow e.g. a content ID may enable integrating the editing
   cycle with capture and distribution. GGIE’s scope is about
   movements of digital media data and metadata from E2E

   <digitaldale> Is there any implication/impact on workflows or
   is it just about movement?

   <glennd> Movement does cover workflows.

   <digitaldale> Management of workflows?

   <glennd> Workflows gets into industry specific issues which are
   out of scope (what happens “in the box”)

   <digitaldale> Is there another place where that is being worked
   on?

   <glennd> Not sure who is working on it today.

   <digitaldale> We have an area where independent workflows have
   had success. But when you get into long tail distribution,
   common workflows powers the distribution. When 2 entities do it
   differently it impacts distribution.

   <glennd> Good point but out of scope for GGIE. The hope is that
   e.g. the standard content identifier will assist in driving
   more standards in that area.

   <digitaldale> May be covered by AMWA (Editor: AMAW = Advanced
   Media Workflow Association?)

   Action Item: Dale to put together some specific text and
   distribute it to the reflector.

How to involve non-professional users?

   Any ideas to make home/hobby creators to follow the UCs when
   they upload or distribute content on the net?

   <glennd> One of the challenges is finding where non-pro users
   stop being non-pro. Very blurry line. GGIE believes that the
   pro-UCs we capture today will become relevant to non-pros as
   they adopt pro tools and abilities.

   <Paul_Higgs> Covers tools but not movement.

   <digitaldale> Non-pros don’t have the budget to buy pro-tools.
   e.g. IDs: There will be pro-IDs and non-pro-IDs. EIDR and AdID
   are pro-IDs.

   <glennd> When upload to YouTube, Google assigns an ID for you
   for free.

   <digitaldale> Non-pro tends to be individual use, pro is
   multi-application use. YouTube is just for YouTube. Pro crosses
   many boundaries/uses.

   <glennd> When non-pros select an Internet service to upload
   their content they should be able to get an ID assigned and
   gain access to GGIE features through the service providers.

   <digitaldale> Consumers are not as interested in metrics, etc.,
   as pros and therefore less interested in distribution and
   metadata associated with distribution.

   <glennd> I think it is not related to the question.

   <gmandyam> There are technologies that consumers can access but
   there are limits e.g. consumers are not accessing broadcast
   distribution. In scope for broadband distribution not
   broadcast.

   <glennd> GGIE is pro and consumer. NBCU does use consumer
   generated content in e.g. news, so having it flow easily is
   important. There is a blending at the boundaries and those
   boundaries are moving toward the pro side. Some consumers are
   also generating substantial income from their content. We try
   to find common needs of both types of users.

   <digitaldale> The term “non-professional” may not be
   appropriate since many consumers are generating income.

   <glennd> Boundary may be more along the lines of the equipment,
   tools, etc. that are used.

Viewer reviews on video content can be considered as a type of
metadata for video content (Cid) generated by users (Uid)

   Is this in scope?

   <glennd> Uid and metadata are in scope.

   Continue discussion on the reflector.

Terminal or household ID sometimes more convenient or fit actual UCs
better than user ID.

   What does the TF think about this? Personalization is becoming
   more important. Must address privacy implications.

   Continue discussion on reflector.

Any other business

   See Response document for Glenn’s responses to issues we did
   not get to on this call.

   Continue discussion on reflector.

Next call

   Next Call: July 1st

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************

Received on Monday, 29 June 2015 16:44:17 UTC