Hi Robin,

Le 12/01/2010 18:13, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> Hi Cyril,
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 17:34 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
>> Le 11/01/2010 15:41, Robin Berjon a écrit :
>>> Ah, do you have a pointer? I searched for "MPEG-U" in all the public and member lists yet only this thread shows up.
>> The liaison was sent by the ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC29 secretariat, and since MPEG did not receive any feedback, I checked and was informed that it was mistakenly sent to Tim Berners Lee ! I informed Doug and Mike of that fact, I thought that it would be discussed in the WG. Anyway it doesn't matter anymore since I think the liaison is outdated.
> Heh! I know it's hard to get any ISO secretariat to do the right thing with liaisons, but the best for liaisons is to send them directly to this list, preferably through a common member (like the equally delightfully named ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG4 recently did).
Yes, you're right, the problem is that liaisons usually are not considered as public documents so the secretariat or MPEG members are not allowed to make them public.

>>> If avoidable I'd rather not join yet another mailing list just for a few questions, after which I'd have to unsubscribe again. Since you're closely involved with this work, would you mind answering the questions I outlined in my original post?
>> I'm sorry but the only questions in your email were "what's happening aroung MPEG-U ?" and "Can you enlighten us ?". I thought the web page I set up was providing enough information (background, roadmap, spec). Can you be more precise as to what you want to know ?
> I'm sorry, I realise that my original message isn't entirely clear in terms of what "enlightening us" covers :). The web page you sent is indeed helpful in describing MPEG-U, but I had other questions. Here is the part that the enlightenment intended to cover:
> """
> One reason I'm asking is because some of the work items in that document are interesting in a generic manner, and therefore are things that could make their way into WebApp's charter when it comes up for rechartering (which is soon). I don't think that all that's listed there would be of interest to WebApps (e.g. I'd be surprised if the WG cared about integration with BIFS or ISOFF packaging, assuming members even have heard of them), but some topics (inter-widget communication, context management, aggregation) certainly are.
> Given MPEG's patent policy and inexperience with web technology one can take a fairly good bet that if MPEG-U defines solutions in this space WebApps won't adopt them, thereby leading to fragmentation: something that the document above states it wishes to avoid.
> """
> So to make the question more explicit: given the stated goal of avoiding fragmentation (with which I strongly agree) in conjunction with the risk inherent in doing work that won't be adopted or that will take place in parallel, are you aware of any plans in the MPEG-U community to avoid fragmentation on topics that WebApps is likely to take up?
That's a good question. My personal understanding was that the initial plan was to have MPEG work on specific topics (and until now the items dealt with by MPEG were not in any W3C charter), to liaise with other standardization bodies working in the area to make sure they are aware of the work done in MPEG and then to coordinate with them to harmonize the solution if necessary. So it would be good if the WG could inform MPEG about the evolution of its charter and possibly have a look at the MPEG spec, and comment on it. Anyway, MPEG is meeting next week, I'll raise your questions and try to have MPEG make a formal answer.


Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 15:37:42 UTC