See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 October 2008
<raphael> scribenick: nessy
proposal to accept last meeting's minutes
+1
*Michael requested to enable the image upload feature on the WG wiki
it now works
Silvia has uploaded a photo already
<raphael> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/FirstF2FAgenda
is the agenda ok and complete?
no objections
Monday will be mostly use cases
please prepare some material for your use cases
the discussion of the syntax will be on Tuesday
jackjansen would like to swap the use cases around, because he can attend only on Tuesday
proposes switch of discussion I and discussion III
raphael is ok with it
no further comments
remember to prepare more details on your use cases
please also enter into the wiki your arrival and departure times
action items to go through
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - items
Raphael to look into image maps spec re spatial fragment shape
image maps allow several different shapes
there are two types of image maps: client-side & server-side
server-side image maps are done with queries ("?") but are not often used on the Web
<Yves> server-side image maps were used back in 94/95, no longer now
cleint-side image maps have as a draw-back the problem that they cannot be indexed by search engines
the second action will be discussed during the F2F and thus documentation created
<Yves> close ACTION-3
<trackbot> ACTION-3 And Erik to document container formats closed
Silvia has sent a long email and a sketch on how fragments and protocols can work
she started with side conditions and then took into account all the different standards (HTTP, proxy, URI) that prvide restrictions
Yves was to check the status of ';' in a URI
he sent an email and found that ";" basically has the same restrictions as "?"
<Yves> ACTION-5 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-5 Check the status of ';' in a URI closed
he is not sure how many other applications are using ";" for different purposes
silvia mentions that we should check use of whatever syntax we decide upon by checking existing usage
<Yves> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
Erik: ";" may be in use by others, too
jackjansen: requested a reading list for the plane
<Yves> Section 3.3 is the useful one, for ;
* Media Annotation UC: [Silvia]
Silvia focused on her action item
will have more at the F2F
* Media Delivery UC: [Davy]
<Erik> Day, you have to speak louder
Davy says we may only have to consider http
raphael: can you investigate more for next week?
* Media Linking UC: [Michael]
Michael modified the UC a little
added Bookmarking
scribe: Playlists
... and interlinking
possibility to get input from seesmic for these use cases
Silvia wonders what we can get from seesmic
WP plugin from Seesmic helps leaving comments
Jack: Seesmic is more about chatting than blogging
Silvia: yes, a "video twitter"
Raphael: much links happening between videos in Seesmic
Jack: they seem to still treat each session of video as a separate unit
Raphael: probably only because of
current technology limitations
... if they had temporal URI, they would use it
Jack: ok..
Raphael: let's discuss more at the F2F
* Media Search UC: no volunteer
* Media Browsing UC: no volunteer
Raphael: may need input from the
media annotations working group
... chance to meet them at TPAC to discuss more
* Photo Book UC: [Erik]
Erik will have something to present at F2F
* Map and Multi Resolution UC: [Raphael]
Raphael will have something to present at F2F
scribe: with discussion of what technologies are currently used
* Karaoke UC: no volunteer
deferred
* Moving Point of Interest UC: [Davy & Erik]
relevant in second phase of WG
nothing to report right now
* Video Browser UC: [Silvia]
will present something at F2F
no further questions on use cases
<raphael> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/State_of_the_Art
** HTTP/URI (Michael/Yves)
** RTSP Fragment (Silvia)
** SMIL (Jack)
** CMML (Silvia)
** MPEG-21 (Davy/Silvia)
** Spatial Fragment (Raphael)
Issues page is mostly focused on HTTP/URI case
Raphael: Silvia, would you like to add something to CMML
<raphael> Jack: CMML relevant since it allows to attach annotations to media fragments
<raphael> Silvia: small overlap
Silvia: CMML relevant from the
POV of naming segments in media files
... but the attachment of metadata, descriptions, timed text
and outgoing hyperlinks are not that relevant to this WG
Jack: curious to discuss at F2F
<Erik> work hard :)
no other business