Re: [GGIE] Minutes for June 17th meeting

Hi Jean-Pierre,

Thank you for the clarification of AMWA with regards to identifier
management. I believe Dale is looking into this so I'll make sure he's
aware of your comments about ISAN, EIDR, AdID and namespacing for
service contexts.

Merci,
Daniel

On 30/06/15 01:42, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 30 June 2015 06:01:50 UTC