- From: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:00:16 +0100
- To: www-tv@w3.org
Participants ------------- 1) Mike Dolan, DirecTV 2) Warner ten Kate, Philips 3) Craig Finseth, US Satellite Broadcasting 4) Gomer Thomas, LGERCA 5) Dan Zigmond, WebTV Should W3C be involved ? ------------------------- arguments contra: - yet another forum besides ATSC, DVB - seems to be a need for local URI schemes for each TV system anyway - ATSC, DVB could go directly to IETF and register them - ATSC, DVB seem to be going their own way - happy to go back to them and tell them what we propose, but not sure that it'll have much impact - broadcasters manage their content - they are not interested in globally unique URIs arguments pro (prevailed): - authors will suffer most if we don't come up with unique scheme - global scheme allows to write applications that can run anywhere - example: coke commercial - use one URI scheme, and use same content in New York and Amsterdam - application writers need global namespace - you can pick up coke commercial and drop it into proprietary TV system - that's why we need transport-independant standard - authoring much harder if you have many URI schemes - W3C has global reach - members requested it - good relation with IETF - W3C staff has expertise CONCLUSION: W3C involvement is helpful (not suprising when polling people that found it worthwhile to participate in this call - so, if you disagree, please say so) Is goal global scheme, or harmonization of local schemes ? ---------------------------------------------------------- Contra global scheme: - broadcasters manage their content - they are not interested in globally unique URIs - local solution will be optimized, whereas global solution will not Pro global scheme: - local URIs better left to whoever owns network - global scope problem more appropriate for W3C - talked to advertisers: they want URIs to be transport independent - but also other content providers, e.g. in the "everybody is a content provider" scenario (write content on mac, send it off to public cable station) Pro harmonization of local scheme: - consistent local URIs useful to translate global URI into local URI - there will be a lot of content that is only available in the local system (e.g. DVB) - using a global solution in this case will create overhead Contra harmonization of local scheme: - less interested in conistent local URIs - "nice to have" but not crucial - could write transformation global->local even if largely different CONCLUSION: Both are interesting - slight priority for working on global scheme Next steps ----------- - Write up document with Use cases/Applicatino scenarios Editor: Craigh Finseth Target: do this until end of this week - Provide Tutorial material explaining inner workings of ATSC and DVB relevant to URI discusssion (explanation of terms etc.) - Gomer's "URL background and requirements" contains material for ATSC http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tv/1998OctDec/0040.html - DVB material: tbd - nobody knows good short tutorial ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Philipp Hoschka | http://www.w3.org/people/hoschka | | World Wide Web Consortium | MIT-LCS ph@w3.org | 545, Technology Square Tel:(+1) 617.258.0604 | Cambridge, MA 02139 Fax:(+1) 617.258.5999 | USA ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 1998 18:00:25 UTC