07:41:09 RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag 07:41:09 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-irc 07:41:11 RRSAgent, make logs public 07:41:13 Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG 07:41:13 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 07:41:14 Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference 07:41:14 Date: 09 December 2008 07:42:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 07:43:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 07:43:50 Chair: Erik, Raphael 07:43:54 ok, Yves; conference Team_(mediafrag)07:43Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 1743Z 07:51:07 fd has joined #mediafrag 07:55:34 Present: Yves, Erik, Raphael, Tom, Davy, Frank (canon observer) 07:55:59 Present+: Silvia (irc) 07:56:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 07:57:26 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/SecondF2FAgenda 07:57:45 scribenick: raphael 07:58:36 erik has joined #mediafrag 08:16:08 TOPIC: 1. Admin 08:17:06 I would like we talk about the composition of the group in order to know if more people/companies are about to join 08:19:02 YouTube/Google Video: Ken Harrenstien is more interested in Media Annotations 08:19:31 ... it would be interested to have someone that has implemented fragments access 08:19:51 Action: Yves to find out with Philippe who from Google would be interested to join 08:19:51 Created ACTION-17 - Find out with Philippe who from Google would be interested to join [on Yves Lafon - due 2008-12-16]. 08:20:56 Action: Raphael to see with Marie Claire who from Daily Motion can join 08:20:56 Sorry, couldn't find user - Raphael 08:22:46 ACTION-2 on Troncy 08:23:11 ACTION-2 due December 16 2008 08:23:11 ACTION-2 Set up a questionary for seond MediaFrag F2F in Gent (8. and 9. Dec) due date now December 16 2008 08:23:15 Frank (Canon): it would be difficult for Canon to join in 2009 08:26:44 Adobe: Larry Masinter answered, he has not yet someone to nominate in the group, but Adobe supports strongly this group 08:27:48 Action: Troncy to check with Karen about Blinx joining or not W3C and Colm the WG 08:27:48 Created ACTION-19 - Check with Karen about Blinx joining or not W3C and Colm the WG [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2008-12-16]. 08:29:17 davy has joined #mediafrag 08:29:32 Action: Michael to check with Wolfgang whether he is still interested in this WG 08:29:32 Created ACTION-20 - Check with Wolfgang whether he is still interested in this WG [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2008-12-16]. 08:29:59 I'm idling 08:30:19 will have go for 2 hours, but back then 08:32:11 Action: Erik to check with Philippe the status of Cisco (Paul Bosso), Apple (Dave Singer or Eric Carlson) 08:32:11 Created ACTION-21 - Check with Philippe the status of Cisco (Paul Bosso), Apple (Dave Singer or Eric Carlson) [on Erik Mannens - due 2008-12-16]. 08:33:01 Action: Raphael to check with Karen the status of Fox Interactive, if they could have an interest in the group 08:33:01 Sorry, couldn't find user - Raphael 08:33:45 ACTION: Raphaël to check with Karen the status of Fox Interactive, if they could have an interest in the group 08:33:45 Sorry, couldn't find user - Raphaël 08:34:33 Erik: should we have a stronger liaison with HTML5? 08:35:25 Yves: we have work to do, it is good to keep contact, but we could ask more feedback when we have better documents 08:35:35 ... same for browser vendors 08:36:18 Topic: 2. Discussion Existing Technologies 08:37:42 On the wiki: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Existing_Technologies_Survey 08:41:02 Tom (IBBT) going through the wiki 08:41:33 Presentation also available at: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/meetings/2008-12-09-f2f_ghent/IBBT-State_of_the_art.pptx 08:42:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 08:43:38 Tom: first explain what SMIL can do (Jack will be here later today and tomorrow) 08:44:42 ... MPEG-7 (see slide 3) 08:47:19 Raphael: should we discuss the format for representing the time point? 08:47:34 Yves: you can adopt the ISO Dates one, the XML Schema one 08:47:56 ... the MPEG-7 one is based on XML Schema, minus the Time Zone, but adding the frame number 08:48:38 ttp://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/all.html 08:51:28 Better: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/all.html 08:51:49 Yves: we should say we consider only time that is local to the media 08:52:04 ... so de don't care about time zones for example 08:52:55 Tom: SVG has no temporal fragment 08:54:09 ... TimedText: it shows text at a given time 08:58:10 fd has joined #mediafrag 08:58:20 ... seems to have another format for representing time point 08:59:09 Tom: CMML derives from Annodex, it requires an off file that has been annotated 09:01:08 Yves: Silvia points the problem of accessing a given frame, if it is not an I-Fram 09:01:22 (when referencing only time) 09:01:35 Raphael: we can decide to always go to the previous I-Frame, that precedes a time point 09:02:38 Tom: CMML specifies time with npt, smpte and clock 09:02:46 Raphael: should we do the same? 09:04:19 Tom: default seems to be npt 09:05:52 Raphael: we come back to these questions when Sivlia is on the phone 09:06:43 Tom: CMML/Annodex/TemporalURI has no spatial Fragment 09:06:53 ... can select Tracks (such as in a CD) 09:07:45 ... has the notion of naming a fragment and refer to this name 09:09:39 Yves: is there an error in the named fragment example? Should the '/' be escaped for selecting the tracks 'a' and 'b' N 09:09:44 s/N/? 09:09:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 09:12:26 Tom: MPEG-21 has 4 different schemes (ffp, offset, mp, mask) 09:12:54 ... offset works in bytes range 09:15:03 ... mp scheme has the time dimension (npt, smpte, utc, mpeg-7) and the spatial dimension (polygon, rectangle, elipse) 09:15:40 ... mask is similar to kind of naming a fragment 09:17:17 Tom: HTML5 (see slide 5) 09:17:38 ... no support for fragmentation or time reference (like in SVG) 09:18:57 ... has Time Daatatypes: Date, Time, Date and Time, Time Zones (UTC: add a Z at the end; others: add time difference to UTC with + or -) 09:19:48 ... values come from XML Schema (perhaps with one small difference, since the seconds can be omitted) 09:25:04 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:25:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html erik 09:27:07 raphael has joined #mediafrag 09:27:20 Raphael: go through the spatial fragments specifications (image maps, MPEG-7, SVG) 09:28:55 Erik: how this technological survey be used ? 09:29:18 Raphael: we will provide either informally or in the spec a mapping between the URI schem and these various XML syntaxes 09:29:43 Yves: Since we want a URI scheme, we will not support everything we have seen, but the maximal possible subset 09:33:29 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:33:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html davy 09:34:08 rtroncy has joined #mediafrag 09:35:37 erik has joined #mediafrag 09:35:59 tom has joined #mediafrag 10:09:02 fd has joined #mediafrag 10:17:05 back now 10:18:31 Silvia, we have a number of questions for you :-) 10:19:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 10:19:55 Team_(mediafrag)07:43Z has now started 10:19:56 + +0329331aaaa 10:20:00 Question 1: We reviewed http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Existing_Technologies_Survey#CMML 10:20:11 zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room 10:20:11 +Meeting_Room; got it 10:20:56 ... we wonder if there is not a mistake in the URI example, and if the '/' should not be escaped 10:24:42 + +61.2.801.2.aabb 10:24:42 - +61.2.801.2.aabb 10:24:44 + +61.2.801.2.aabb 10:26:15 Silvia: first we use a '-' and then move to '/' 10:26:56 in the examples on CMML, the / after the ? should be escaped 10:27:13 => %2f 10:28:50 Silvia: I think it is ok to have the '/' in the fragment ('#') but not for the query ('?') 10:29:38 Silvia will check whether there is a syntax error or not 10:30:22 Question 2: CMML covered 3 schemes for representing time point: npt, smpte and clock 10:30:37 Raphael: should we do the same? 10:30:59 Silvia: we wanted to be interoperable with all formats 10:31:14 ... in practice, people tend to use the 'npt' scheme 10:31:30 ... maybe it is better to talk with video professionals 10:31:37 ... they need to access the frame level 10:31:58 ... I think that for most use cases, the npt scheme is accurate enough 10:33:13 ... npt is the default scheme in CMML 10:34:08 ... don't confuse: ntp, the network time protocol (unix) and npt, what we are discussing 10:34:57 ... npt = normal playback time 10:35:34 Raphael: Question 3: Frame access, should we always go to the last I-Frame that precedes the time point we want to access 10:35:41 Silvia: depends on the what the codecs allows 10:36:05 ... with Theora, we jump to always to the previous I-Frame 10:36:55 ... we need to be accurate when we store the fragment (cache), it seems less important on the client side 10:37:35 Davy: I agree with Silvia, we might want to provide some guidelines for some specific formats 10:38:10 ... we cannot define an algorithm that says that a time point corresponds to a particual frame for all encoding cases, it's not possible 10:38:28 Silvia: we can say that previous I-Frame is accurate enough 10:39:52 Raphael: what the cache will finally store? 10:40:29 Silvia: Cache will store what the servers is serving, and recompose fragments based on bytes, not using the URI requested by the UA 10:40:40 http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/HTTP_implementation 10:41:46 Topic: 3. Define Types of Addressing 10:41:51 zakim: mute me 10:42:08 http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Types_of_Fragment_Addressing 10:42:56 zakim, mute me 10:42:56 Silvia should now be muted 10:43:04 Erik: page prepared by Davy (with Guillaume input?) 10:43:52 Davy: this page has origin from the list of issues we have discussed during our 1st face to face meeting 10:44:36 ... Track: whether a media format supports tracks or not depends on the Container format, but not the Coding format 10:45:36 Frank: do you consider all the video quality level in one track? for example in a media adaptation use case 10:46:11 Davy: I do not think that a different quality of the video is a fragment 10:49:52 Raphael: discussion about what is the boudaries of the track definition 10:50:06 zakim, unmute me 10:50:06 Silvia should no longer be muted 10:51:58 Yves: examples such as multiple camera angles, multiple resolution of the same video in the same stream, audio languages, subtitles: are all of these tracks ? 10:52:46 Silvia: the boundary should be what the encoding format exposes 10:53:07 ... or rather the container format 10:53:25 s/encoding/encapsulation/ 10:53:56 Raphael: if the container format exposes the notion of tracks, we could address them, otherwise, we should NOT invent them 10:54:29 ... we look at the table 10:54:44 Silvia: different camera angles can be seen as multiple video tracks 10:55:16 ... different resolution: encoding format does not work that way, they tend to provide different files 10:55:26 ... we should not worry about that now, can be dealt with later 10:56:42 Davy: Temporal dimension: need to take into account the precision we can get in the time point 10:58:26 ... Spatial dimension: we cannot generally extract a region, not make yet a decision if we consider only rectangle regions or arbitrary shapes 10:58:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 10:59:47 ... Name dimension: again depends on the container format! For example, one can include a CMML or TimedText description in a MP4 or Ogg container 11:01:06 Silvia: QuickTime has 'QuickTimeText' that can be used to jump to a dvd chapter 11:01:31 cueranges 11:01:39 ... Flash has cueranges 11:01:55 http://www.apple.com/quicktime/tutorials/texttracks.html 11:02:22 ups, s/cueranges/cuepoints/ 11:02:28 Yves: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Soundbooth/2.0/WSA5A1DDFB-6BE2-4486-BE0C-A10CEEF119ADa.html ? 11:03:26 Davy: the table is not complete yet, for some format, I couldn't figure out what is possible or not 11:05:12 Davy: summary is that generally, the temporal dimension is not a problem 11:05:35 ... for the spatial dimension, this is more problematic! 11:06:01 ... a ROI can be extracted with H264, but this is not a crop, rather a decrease in quality 11:06:33 ... but generally not possible to extract a region in the compressed domain 11:08:34 Raphael: it is not clear what to do with a spatial fragment 11:08:58 ... my suggestion would be that the server send the whole picture, but the UA does something with the fragment, e.g. highlight the region 11:09:22 Davy: for a mobile use case, it makes more sense to not download the whole image, but just the region 11:09:53 Frank: why not specifying that in the URI, whether the client want to download the complete resource or not 11:10:31 Yves: can be done in HTTP with an extension 11:11:21 ... the discovery phase will be: server, tell me what do you support 11:11:56 ... for example, using the option method, or some parameters in the GET, there are many options 11:12:48 ... we can then implement the option response, or a content negociation 11:12:50 s/option/OPTIONS 11:13:23 Yves: discovery is always painful! 11:15:08 Silvia: we always found that discovery was difficult 11:15:28 ... we had to find out which tracks were available 11:15:32 http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/ROE 11:15:50 ... we discussed a format, named ROE, which is a media file format description 11:17:28 ... this is currently used in Metavid 11:19:19 Silvia: I'm not sure how the discovery and selection should be handled by URI or not 11:20:55 Silvia: the UA asks for the ROE file, parse the XML and knows which tracks are available, the UA can then request the right track 11:21:36 e.g. ?track=a1,v1,sub1,cap1 11:23:05 Raphael: can we find the track description in some headers of the container format? 11:23:13 Davy: it depends on the format, it might be the case 11:23:28 Sivlia: I agree, it didn't exist for ogg, that's why we invented ROE 11:26:21 ... I'm in favor of specifying a syntax, even though just one format will be able to deal with it 11:26:49 ... so have a way of specifying tracks and we will list later on which codec and container formats can process 11:26:59 s/will/may/ 11:28:06 s/Sivlia/Silvia 11:28:47 Davy: the audio encoding formats are just relevant for the temporal dimension 11:29:04 ... the still images format: JPEG2000 is pretty advanced 11:30:01 ... the container formats: mov, mp4, 3gp allows to select track and names, but we need to modify some values (for example change the length field) 11:30:22 ... for other formats such as MXG, ASF, I put question marks 11:32:34 Action: Davy to complete the table, trying to get the answer for the current question marks, except when this is a close format 11:32:34 Created ACTION-22 - Complete the table, trying to get the answer for the current question marks, except when this is a close format [on Davy Van Deursen - due 2008-12-16]. 11:33:44 Davy: some formats are then useless for our purpose, because they will support nothing (e.g. WAV, AIFF, AU, XMF) 11:34:02 Raphael: it is still interested to report this information in the document 11:38:08 Raphael: Summary: we agree to cover these 4 dimensions 11:38:39 ... perhaps the syntax will be simpler for the temporal dimension, since it will be 99% of our use cases 11:39:04 ... perhaps the temporal dimension will be the default one 11:39:09 -Silvia 11:39:28 -Meeting_Room 11:39:29 Team_(mediafrag)07:43Z has ended 11:39:30 Attendees were +0329331aaaa, Tom, Raphael, Erik, Davy, Frank, Yves, +61.2.801.2.aabb, Silvia 11:39:40 ... up to decide to the WG when we will talk about the syntax 11:39:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 11:40:37 LUNCH TIME 12:41:08 irc bot restart in 3 minutes to reset state; if this will be too much of an inconvenience, comment on #sysreq know 12:44:32 Silvia, quick poll 12:44:56 yes? 12:45:01 Media Annotations is willing to organize the next joint face to face meeting in Barcelona 12:45:10 prior to the WWW conference in Madrid 12:45:21 awww - I'd love to go there! 12:45:25 potential dates are: 16 and 17 of April 12:45:36 WWW conference will then be 20-24 of April 12:45:51 so you have to spend the week-end in Barcelona and/or Madrid 12:46:00 ... we can also go to the beach :-) 12:46:06 will you be able to make it ? 12:46:24 maybe 12:46:41 will need to see from the biz POV and whether I can get Mozilla to sponsor it 12:46:46 depends on your funding ? Mozilla? 12:46:49 (or some of it) 12:46:54 ok 12:46:59 good, but I note your interest 12:47:34 Topic: 3. Implementation Issues (protocol & caching) 12:47:35 when you're in australia, meeting people in your field is of major interest, since everybody is so far away 12:48:31 Zakim has joined #mediafrag 12:48:52 Yves leads the dicussion 12:50:54 Zakim has joined #mediafrag 12:52:07 Team_(mediafrag)07:43Z has now started 12:52:15 + +329331aaaa 12:52:28 zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room 12:52:28 +Meeting_Room; got it 12:52:54 Present: Yves, Frank, Davy, Erik, Raphael, Tom, Silvia (remote) 12:53:15 RRSAgent, draft minutes 12:53:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 12:53:40 + +61.2.801.2.aabb 12:54:17 s/3. Implementation Issues/4. Implementation Issues 12:55:35 Yves: look at http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/HTTP_Fragment_Caches 12:56:06 ... there is a discussion in the mailing list between myself, Silvia and others 12:56:22 ... about the solutions recommended by annodex, the 4-way handshakes 12:56:34 ... and I was discussing the alternative 2-way handshakes 12:57:16 ... both are limited, because it will be difficult to access track fragments, and even worst spatial fragments, because transcoding might be required 12:57:55 Silvia: we should not use fragment when a transcoding operation is needed 12:58:23 Yves: when you deal with tracks, do you think we can handle everything in the compressed domains? 12:58:38 Silvia: yes, tracks are dealt with by the container formats 12:59:56 Davy: yes it depends on the format 13:00:35 ... why do you think the outcome of a transcoding operation is not a fragment anymore ? 13:01:22 Silvia: because there is no one to one mapping between the bytes of the original file and the outcome file 13:01:51 ... i'm talking about physical fragment and not logical fragment 13:02:17 Yves: I argue that a fragment in the URI spec does not specify if it is a compressed resource 13:02:33 ... it is a part of the resource 13:03:17 Silvia: I argue that a fragment of a original resource must be a part of the resource 13:03:23 Yves: I do not argue 13:03:57 ... you can have lostless transformation process, but there is not a single byte range process 13:04:15 Silvia: I didn't argue about having a single or multiple byte ranges 13:04:23 Yves and Davy disagree 13:04:45 Yves: if you transcode to a different format, yes, this is a different resource 13:05:05 ... but if you transcode to the same format, I would consider this is the same resource 13:05:10 ... so a valid fragment 13:06:18 Yves: example, get all

in a HTML page, this is a fragment 13:06:42 ... it might not be a continous fragment, so difficult to cache, but it is still a fragment 13:07:09 Silvia: YES, but you're not changing the bytes, you have the same bytes 13:07:48 Yves: ok, but if you use FLAC, which is lostless, you will have a valid fragment 13:08:08 ... mp3 is definitively not the same thing 13:08:19 ... the fact that the stored bytes are different is not relevant 13:08:32 ... the criteria is what you get, what you watch 13:09:02 Raphael: ok, but cache will handle that? 13:09:17 s/cache/how cache 13:09:38 Yves: caches are not forced to store _all_ fragments, need to be specified 13:11:15 Yves: merging does not involve a simple concatenation of bytes ... you already add information for serving the fragments 13:11:53 Silvia: I think we will have a lot of pitfalls with this path 13:12:03 Yves: which ones ? I want to see examples 13:12:46 Silvia: take samples of a FLAC file, decode them, and re-encode them, you will not get a playable piece ??? 13:13:26 ... I just do not see happening this extra complexity 13:13:34 Yves: perhaps, but nothing prevent to do that? 13:13:54 ... i'm arguing that such operation done in the cache might be more efficient 13:14:21 Silvia: i don't want to support transoding with lost of information 13:14:49 Yves: agree, fair thing to do 13:14:59 s/lost/loss 13:15:04 ... but not all merging operation have to be done with transcoding 13:15:41 Raphael: which formats are we talking about ? 13:16:04 Davy: most of them that are used loose information anyway 13:16:34 Yves: if you do a lossy transformation, then you will get another resource, so another URI 13:18:23 ... but it can be done transparently using content negotiation 13:19:03 Yves: another issue, is that annodex create an unlimited numbers of sub-resources 13:19:16 ... because it uses the ? and not a real fragment 13:19:53 Silvia: we did that because we thought it was not appropriate to use the '#' ... but I'm happy to use now the hash 13:20:48 Yves: i just want to come to the header (and footer) of the current annodex solution ... that is done in the compressed domain 13:23:35 ... the solution I'm talking about has headers modified 13:24:12 ... smart caches will have a way of doing merge in the compressed domains 13:24:19 s/domains/domain 13:24:39 ... it can be done in specialized proxies (dedicated to media) 13:25:53 in Ogg, it is not possible to have a video file with a gap at the beginning and a gap and a gap in the middle 13:26:01 it will not result in a valid resource 13:26:12 thus, if you have more than one segment, it needs to be done as video playlists 13:35:10 Silvia: the solution we advocated in Annodex will not store n times the overlap 13:35:11 ? 13:36:14 Yves: in my solution, we will store just the complete playable files 13:36:57 ... so we are talking about the same thing, except that in my case, we store additional headers and footers 13:38:41 kfish has joined #mediafrag 13:42:28 Hi Conrad ... 13:42:47 hi raphael :-) 13:43:39 Conclusion: Yves advocates to store and cache what the server is serving, playable resources, so the bytes corresponding to the fragment requested anhanced with the apropriate header/footer depending on the encoding format 13:43:55 s/anhanced/enhanced 13:44:02 s/apropriate/sppropriate 13:44:20 s/sppropriate/appropriate 13:44:38 Yves: same as byte ranges, if there is overlap, the cache will merge them 13:45:09 ... we are talking about smart caches ... the other ones will not cache them 13:46:21 Silvia: I will favor we go mainly for byte ranges and see immediate implementations 13:46:29 ... and see later what can be improved 13:48:23 Yves: if you want to do only byte ranges, you should do it such a way that it is still a fragment 13:48:43 ... the solution was advocating does that naturally, but requires smart caches 13:48:59 s/was/I was 13:50:15 The byte range based proposal for caching web proxies in annodex is one that can be supported by existing web proxies 13:50:30 therefore I suggest we support that first 13:51:06 the difference between this and what Yves proposes is that the recomposition intelligence goes into the server or into the web proxy 13:51:08 Raphael: but does annodex solution implies storing additional information such as header/footer ? 13:51:30 if Yves case, the web proxy has to know about all the encoding formats and needs to understand how to recompose them 13:51:48 Erik: I wonder if your two solutions are orthogonal or not? 13:52:08 I was proposing to do both 13:52:19 Raphael: Silvia, YES, but Yves talked about smart dedicated web media proxies 13:52:21 s/do/allow/ 13:53:47 Yves: I agree with supporting both, but I would add we put too much emphasis on caching, given that most of the traffic is not cached anyway 13:53:58 ... so we should not spend too much time on caches 13:55:05 it's done through services like Akamai 13:55:27 who are not using HTTP caches for that (at least the CDN I know of) 13:55:54 -Silvia 13:56:06 -Meeting_Room 13:56:08 Team_(mediafrag)07:43Z has ended 13:56:09 Attendees were +329331aaaa, Meeting_Room, +61.2.801.2.aabb, Silvia 13:56:12 no, they are using proprietary solutions 13:56:24 and thus avoiding the existing Web proxy infrastructure 13:56:46 but that's outside of what we need to worry about :) 13:56:56 yes :) 13:57:05 say hi to the media annotations guys :) 13:57:10 I will continue to hang out here 13:59:17 Coffee break 13:59:29 Topic: 5. Joint Session with Media Annotations WG 13:59:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael 14:41:54 Topic: joint meeting MF & MA 14:42:12 fsasaki has joined #mediafrag 14:42:45 Daniel has joined #mediafrag 14:43:01 poll third F2F: 16/04-17/04 @ Barcelona (prior to WWW conference @ Madrid) 14:43:25 everybody finds it a good idea 14:43:32 wonsuk has joined #mediafrag 14:45:31 wernerbailer has joined #mediafrag 14:45:51 Raphael to talk about status of MF group 14:45:56 vmalais has joined #mediafrag 14:46:14 http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Main_Page 14:47:00 tobiasb has joined #mediafrag 14:47:39 tom has joined #mediafrag 14:49:28 Raphael summarizes wiki-pages under "Preparation of Working Draft" 14:49:34 * Use Cases 14:51:18 ... http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Use_Cases_%26_Requirements_Draft 14:52:32 ... functional and non-functional requirements are also part of that UC page 14:53:07 * Communication between client and server 14:53:39 ... http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/HTTP_implementation (to be elaborated soon) 14:53:52 ... 2-way & 4-way handshake 14:54:08 * Existing technologies 14:54:33 ... http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Existing_Technologies_Survey 14:55:31 ... cover all technologies out there & in the end convert our solution back to existing ones 14:55:55 Question: what type of fragments will be possible? 14:56:12 ... temporal for sure in v1 14:56:56 ... temporal & spatial for video is most difficult one in v2 14:57:17 ... also tracks are in scope in v1 14:58:31 ACTION: Erik (together with Jean-Pierre) to add TV-Anytime also to Existing Technologies Survey 14:58:31 Created ACTION-23 - (together with Jean-Pierre) to add TV-Anytime also to Existing Technologies Survey [on Erik Mannens - due 2008-12-16]. 15:00:46 joakim has joined #mediafrag 15:00:49 ability of using XMP for notition of tracks ... this seems possible (link MF & MA) ... to be investigated 15:02:06 scribenick: erik 15:02:28 ... common scenario from MA (description of resources) to MF (communication client/server through content negotiation) for selecting tracks 15:03:01 http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/XMP 15:03:15 Ingredients 15:06:16 cpoppe has joined #mediafrag 15:07:04 ACTION: Erik (through extra info from Felix) to ask Adobe (Larry) more info about xmpMM:Ingredients 15:07:04 Created ACTION-24 - (through extra info from Felix) to ask Adobe (Larry) more info about xmpMM:Ingredients [on Erik Mannens - due 2008-12-16]. 15:08:17 Felix to talk about status of MA group 15:11:26 * stating problem of information loss when mapping (setting) information from one format to generic MA ontology 15:12:47 ... Raphael: is common subset on metalevel not enough? 15:13:31 Sam has joined #mediafrag 15:16:52 ... felix: looked at existing meta-models today ... all "getting" models, not "setting" ... issues (protocol, information loss) 15:18:59 ... Raphael: maybe MF can give some input via explanation of our table ... within ... 15:19:23 ... http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Types_of_Fragment_Addressing 15:20:37 ... summary: 5th column ... everywhere where there is a "1"&"2" it is possible to add metadata within 15:22:33 Zakim has left #mediafrag 15:22:36 fsasaki has joined #mediafrag 15:23:30 Raphael: in case some metadata are embedded into the header of a media resource, should we be able to have access to it using a fragment ? 15:23:42 ... using which dimension ? the 'name' dimension ? 15:24:57 felix: will named fragments be possible? 15:25:35 ... Raphael: yes (i18 will be problem to handle though) 15:26:08 * XMP overview 15:26:43 ... http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/XMP 15:29:36 ... Raphael: what about collisions of types/values? 15:30:44 http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html 15:32:19 ... only get-functions for the moment (cfr. "setting"-problem) 15:35:23 http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/FeaturesTable 15:42:12 http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html 15:42:26 ... UC document 15:49:48 tom has joined #mediafrag 15:52:20 formal review of MA UC Doc by MF (probably before 31/12/08) 15:53:10 formal review of MF UC Doc by MA (and others SVG, HTML5, TimedText) (probably before 31/01/09) 15:56:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:56:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html Daniel 15:58:19 adjourn 15:58:23 thx the organizers 15:59:09 cpoppe has left #mediafrag 16:00:38 logout 16:00:58 wonsuk has left #mediafrag 16:02:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-mediafrag-minutes.html fsasaki 16:09:12 erik has joined #mediafrag 16:21:59 erik has joined #mediafrag 16:25:48 erik has joined #mediafrag