RE: looking for tv-related URI use cases/application scenarios

Gomer,

Correct on all counts.

Tim Chambers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomer Thomas [mailto:gomer@lgerca.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 10:29 AM
> To: Chambers, Tim
> Cc: www-tv
> Subject: Re: looking for tv-related URI use cases/application 
> scenarios
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Your clarification is very helpful.
> 
> As I understand it, you are now sending an "http:" URI, which 
> refers to a
> resource on a Web server in the usual way. Thus, for your 
> current operations
> you do not need a TV URI scheme at all; the already 
> standardized "http:"
> scheme works just fine. However, a key feature of that scheme 
> which you are
> taking advantage of is that the same URI can be included in line 21
> regardless of which local broadcast affiliate or cable 
> provider is carrying
> your program. It does not need to be modified to remain valid.
> 
> As I understand it, in the future you would like to be able 
> to refer in the
> same way to a resource contained in the broadcast stream. I 
> interpret that
> to mean -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that (a) you would 
> very much like
> to preserve this property that the URI does not have to be 
> modified for each
> local affiliate or cable operator who carries your program, 
> (b) you would
> like the syntax of the URI to be as similar to the syntax of 
> an "http:" URI
> as possible, and (c) in fact, it would be useful to be able 
> to use exactly
> the same URI to refer to either an HTML page on a Web server 
> or an HTML page
> included in the broadcast, so receivers with a back channel 
> could retrieve
> it one way and receivers without one could retrieve it the other.
> 
> I am assuming that in your case the actual HTML page would always be
> contained in the same channel as the trigger. Please correct 
> me if that is
> an incorrect assumption.
> 
> A lot of these details may seem pretty picayune, but they are 
> essential to
> gain a full understanding of the requirements on syntax and 
> universality of
> binding of any broadcast TV URI scheme.
> 
> Gomer Thomas
> 
> 
> Chambers, Tim wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, this is an example of a project that we're 
> currently working on.
> >
> > To answer these questions below:
> >
> > Building with todays tv systems in mind, we are not relying on the
> > ability to send data on all the lines of the VBI to send 
> URI triggers
> > *and* web data, which would be the ideal. So we are currently NOT
> > sending anything but a URI trigger with the TV signal.
> >
> > This is because the VBI is often stripped out as the signal 
> moves from
> > the television network (or cable provider) to the local distributor.
> > There is no clarity over who has the "rights" to the VBI. 
> As I work for
> > a company that is the copyright holder to many great TV 
> brands, we like
> > to think that the same way we provide the "traditional 
> content" of the
> > show, we should be providing the "enhanced content."
> >
> > Anyway, a solution of sorts to the VBI issue is that line21 has been
> > deemed "must carry" by the FCC, with the idea of sending closed
> > captioning there. Thus we send the URI trigger down line21 
> along with
> > the captioning, which would send the set top box user to a 
> "enhanced tv
> > jump page" that is an normal HTML page on our servers. For 
> all of this,
> > we are planning to use the modem-line backchannel that the 
> set top box
> > would support.
> >
> > The ideal would be that a section of the VBI, or later, of the MPEG
> > stream becomes fully standardized for sending additional 
> data, and that
> > there are guarantees that this area could not be removed. 
> If that were
> > the case, we would send everything through the television signal.
> >
> > Tim Chambers
> > Director of Technology and Production
> > Columbia Tristar Interactive
> > tchambers@sonypictures.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gomer Thomas [mailto:gomer@lgerca.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 9:33 AM
> > > To: Chambers, Tim
> > > Cc: 'www-tv@w3.org'
> > > Subject: Re: looking for tv-related URI use cases/application
> > > scenarios
> > >
> > >
> > > This looks like an excellent use case. Can you provide a 
> little more
> > > detail? Where is the actual "jump page" which is to be loaded
> > > up? Is it on
> > > an Internet web site? Or is it also encoded in line 21 of the
> > > VBI? If it is
> > > encoded in line 21, is it in the same channel as the trigger,
> > > or can it be
> > > in a different channel?
> > >
> > > Chambers, Tim wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's start this off with basics:
> > > >
> > > > It would be a trigger encoded into the line21 of the VBI
> > > (which is must
> > > > carry for broadcasters) of a tv show that loads up a 
> "jump page" of
> > > > enhanced tv content that supplements the television program.
> > > >
> > > > Tim
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Philipp Hoschka [mailto:Philipp.Hoschka@sophia.inria.fr]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 12:46 PM
> > > > > To: www-tv@w3.org
> > > > > Subject: looking for tv-related URI use cases/application
> > > scenarios
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To better motivate the requirements, and evaluate their
> > > priorities,
> > > > > the URI telecon this morning decided that we're lacking
> > > application
> > > > > scenarios how tv-related URIs would be used
> > > > >
> > > > > So, if you have a particular idea of how tv URIs will be used,
> > > > > please send it to this mailing list
> > > > >
> > > > > We have an editor (Craig Finseth) who will summarrize these
> > > > > scenarios in a coherent document
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philipp Hoschka, W3C
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gomer Thomas
> > > LGERCA, Inc.
> > > 40 Washington Road
> > > Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
> > > phone: 609-716-3513
> > > fax: 609-716-3503
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Gomer Thomas
> LGERCA, Inc.
> 40 Washington Road
> Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
> phone: 609-716-3513
> fax: 609-716-3503
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 1998 13:50:54 UTC