11:58:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
11:58:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-irc
11:58:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:58:53 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #mediafrag
11:58:54 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
11:58:54 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see IA_MFWG()8:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
11:58:55 <trackbot> Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
11:58:56 <trackbot> Date: 09 September 2009
11:59:31 <raphael> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0025.html
11:59:37 <raphael> Chair: Erik/Raphael
11:59:44 <Zakim> IA_MFWG()8:00AM has now started
11:59:51 <Zakim> + +49.300.aaaa
12:00:41 <raphael> Regrets: Davy, Conrad
12:00:50 <Zakim> +wonsuk
12:01:08 <raphael> zakim, aaaa is me
12:01:08 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
12:01:08 <Zakim> +raphael; got it
12:01:20 <mhausenblas> Zakim, aabb is me
12:01:20 <Zakim> +mhausenblas; got it
12:01:53 <raphael> Regret+ Jack
12:02:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
12:03:12 <Zakim> +Yves
12:03:14 <raphael> Present: Michael, Raphael, Yves, Wonsuk, Silvia(irc)
12:06:56 <erik> erik has joined #mediafrag
12:06:59 <raphael> Scribe: raphael
12:07:06 <raphael> Present+ Erik
12:07:12 <raphael> scribenick: raphael
12:07:39 <raphael> Informal discussion about the syntax of the Range unit syntax
12:07:53 <raphael> Raphael: can we have multiple values in the Acept-Ranges ?
12:08:03 <raphael> Yves: yes, comma separated
12:08:21 <raphael> Michael: I would also suggest to use the cue-values, like the accept header
12:08:42 <raphael> ... for example, I accept npt with 0.8 and smpte-30 with 0.2
12:08:53 <raphael> Yves: makes less sense [I didn't get why]
12:09:04 <Yves> <<
12:09:04 <Yves> The response-header "Accept-Ranges" field allows the server to
12:09:04 <Yves>    indicate its acceptance of range requests for a resource:
12:09:06 <Yves> >>
12:09:07 <raphael> Michael: but then, what does it mean, they are equal ?
12:09:23 <raphael> Yves: yes, the server decides
12:10:21 <raphael> Topic: 1. ADMIN
12:10:35 <Yves> +1
12:10:37 <raphael> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 02 September 2009 telecon
12:10:40 <mhausenblas> +1
12:10:46 <raphael> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/02-mediafrag-minutes.html
12:10:47 <raphael> +1
12:10:50 <raphael> Minutes accepted
12:11:03 <raphael> Virtual F2F meeting: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/FourthF2FAgenda
12:11:14 <raphael> http://www.doodle.com/xbw9stfdmz3pr4nw
12:12:31 <nessy> +1
12:13:37 <Zakim> + +329331aacc
12:13:57 <raphael> Unfortunately: for the meeting, Jack will not make it and Yves is at risk
12:14:15 <raphael> Jack will be on irc
12:14:30 <raphael> ALL: please, complete the agenda with background reading material to prepare the meeting
12:14:52 <raphael> Topic: 2. UC & REQUIREMENTS:
12:15:00 <raphael> ACTION-95?
12:15:00 <trackbot> ACTION-95 -- Michael Hausenblas to review ALL UC with a mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile usage -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
12:15:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95
12:15:20 <erik> zakim, aacc is me
12:15:20 <Zakim> +erik; got it
12:15:23 <raphael> -- continue
12:15:31 <raphael> ACTION-101?
12:15:31 <trackbot> ACTION-101 -- Yves Lafon to write a UC describing the use of aspect ratio feature and thus motivating its usage -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
12:15:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/101
12:16:10 <raphael> close ACTION-101
12:16:10 <trackbot> ACTION-101 Write a UC describing the use of aspect ratio feature and thus motivating its usage closed
12:17:09 <raphael> We received 3 reviews from MAWG
12:17:10 <raphael> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0008.html
12:17:15 <raphael> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0012.html
12:17:20 <raphael> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Sep/0013.html
12:18:28 <raphael> Werner to introduce other units such as smpte-50 and smpte-60
12:18:34 <raphael> Nobody against ?
12:18:36 <raphael> [slicence]
12:18:47 <raphael> s/slicence/silence
12:19:03 <Yves> ok with this, (but we should avoid explosion of units)
12:20:14 <raphael> ACTION: raphael to address all comments and write a reply to MAWG
12:20:14 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - raphael
12:20:20 <raphael> trackbot, status
12:20:36 <raphael> ACTION: Raphaël to address all comments and write a reply to MAWG
12:20:36 <trackbot> Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
12:21:09 <raphael> Michael: should we have also a paragraph, directed to the MPEG-21 community why we are doing that?
12:22:40 <raphael> ACTION: Raphaël to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG community
12:22:40 <trackbot> Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
12:23:19 <raphael> ACTION: Troncy to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG community
12:23:19 <trackbot> Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
12:24:46 <raphael> Good we have finally one review of our document from a WG
12:24:55 <raphael> Yves: I will contact TAG once more
12:25:29 <raphael> ... and tell them our current design choice regarding the use of ? when transcoding is necessary
12:25:45 <raphael> Topic: 3. SPECIFICATION
12:25:55 <tmichel> tmichel has joined #mediafrag
12:25:55 <raphael> ACTION-103?
12:25:55 <trackbot> ACTION-103 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to write a paragraph in our 2 documents, most likely within the Terminology sections, explaining that when we say URI, we mean URI Ref -- due 2009-09-09 -- OPEN
12:25:55 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/103
12:26:03 <raphael> close ACTION-103
12:26:03 <trackbot> ACTION-103 Write a paragraph in our 2 documents, most likely within the Terminology sections, explaining that when we say URI, we mean URI Ref closed
12:26:40 <raphael> Silvia has proposed a paragraph
12:27:00 <Zakim> + +49.238.aadd
12:27:05 <raphael> Raphael has slightly updated it, now present in the 2 documents
12:27:24 <raphael> ACTION-49?
12:27:24 <trackbot> ACTION-49 -- Yves Lafon to draft the HTTP-Range syntax for different units (completing all the syntax for the two way handshake) -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
12:27:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/49
12:27:31 <mhausenblas> Zakim, aadd is tmichel 
12:27:31 <Zakim> +tmichel; got it
12:27:38 <raphael> close ACTION-49
12:27:38 <trackbot> ACTION-49 Draft the HTTP-Range syntax for different units (completing all the syntax for the two way handshake) closed
12:27:53 <raphael> Yves: my proposal is to re-use the same kind of syntax than for bytes
12:28:15 <raphael> ... for the Range header: Range: <timeformat> '=' <start time> - <end time>
12:28:33 <raphael> ... and for the Content-Range header
12:28:41 <raphael> ... Content-Range: <timeformat> ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time> '/' <total duration>
12:29:01 <raphael> ... since we are not using '-' and '/' in our syntax, it is safe
12:29:26 <raphael> ... there are a number of things to do ... register some units, such as npt, smpte-30, etc.
12:29:57 <raphael> One issue: the duration for some unit might not be easy to define
12:30:05 <raphael> ... would welcome the opinion of Jack and Davy
12:30:32 <raphael> Yves: I have proposed also another solution, more flexible, but a bit more complex
12:30:49 <raphael> ... we could then mix units (bad?) but it solves the duration problem
12:31:59 <Yves> issue is when you are requesting a fragment of a smpte-indexed video
12:32:09 <Yves> if the beginning of the file is not 0:0:0.0
12:32:16 <Yves> then you have an issue expressing duration
12:32:40 <Yves> (if you use the same unit)
12:33:36 <raphael> Yves: I think that smpte information is embedded in the file
12:34:32 <raphael> ACTION-69?
12:34:33 <trackbot> ACTION-69 -- Conrad Parker to draw a representation of the general structure of a media resource, for streamable formats (H/H' + K + D1 + D2 + D3) -- due 2009-04-24 -- OPEN
12:34:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/69
12:34:55 <raphael> I will chase Conrad, we need this picture
12:35:00 <raphael> ACTION-104?
12:35:00 <trackbot> ACTION-104 -- Yves Lafon to start a thread on the mailing list to summarize the state of the discussion regarding ? and # (? when transcoding happening, #for other cases) + use of URI template for ? -- due 2009-09-09 -- OPEN
12:35:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/104
12:35:07 <raphael> close ACTION-104
12:35:07 <trackbot> ACTION-104 Start a thread on the mailing list to summarize the state of the discussion regarding ? and # (? when transcoding happening, #for other cases) + use of URI template for ? closed
12:35:41 <raphael> A long thread has started
12:35:49 <raphael> only Silvia and I have answered so far
12:36:13 <raphael> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0016.html
12:37:59 <raphael> Michael: having 2 ways for expressing the same thing might make the standard too complex to implement
12:38:27 <raphael> ... for me, a fragment is definitively a 'hash'
12:38:47 <raphael> ... needs to have another thought
12:39:03 <raphael> Erik: same here, we need to discuss it with Davy
12:39:33 <raphael> Raphael: I will put that upfront on the agenda, with background reading, so everybody must have an opinion
12:39:48 <nessy> We have to accept the definitions of URIs where a fragment has a specific meaning
12:40:05 <raphael> I agree
12:40:09 <nessy> if some of the operations that we require on media documents do not fall under this definition, we cannot do it with fragments
12:40:40 <nessy> it is not our choice to redefine URI fragments and queries
12:40:50 <raphael> Silvia: the pb is that the specific meaning for fragments is loosely defined currently
12:40:59 <raphael> ... and up to many interpretations
12:41:11 <nessy> not really
12:41:13 <raphael> s/pb/problem
12:41:21 <mhausenblas> nessy, why not?
12:41:24 <raphael> Raphael: thus the open question to the TAG group
12:42:00 <raphael> Summary on protocol issue: http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/09/08/uri-fragments-vs-uri-queries-for-media-fragment-addressing/
12:42:08 <nessy> it clearly states that it is relates to a primary resource
12:42:10 <nessy> "The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect
12:42:10 <nessy>    identification of a secondary resource by reference to a primary
12:42:10 <nessy>    resource and additional identifying information."
12:42:46 <nessy> quoted from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
12:43:14 <raphael> The problem is that we DON'T know if when you do transcoding, this is part or not of the primary resource
12:43:37 <nessy> a transcoded resource is not identical to the primary resource
12:43:51 <raphael> Topic: 4. TEST CASES
12:44:09 <raphael> Michael: have hack corrib, http://ld2sd.deri.org/corrib/
12:44:29 <raphael> Silvia: where do you have this statement written?
12:44:49 <raphael> "a transcoded resource is not identical to the primary resource" <- needs a ref :-)
12:45:47 <nessy> it's in the nature of what a URI is
12:46:13 <raphael> Michael: motivation, have a collaborative tool to directly generate the test cases in RDF ... instead of editing on wiki and then do a manual conversion
12:46:17 <nessy> different transcoded representations have to be different resources
12:46:39 <raphael> Silvia: what you say is appealing, but needs to be defined somewhere
12:46:53 <raphael> Raphael: and in particular, where to define the border?
12:47:20 <nessy> so, if the primary resource is addressed by http://example.com/xxx , how do you address the transcoded resource?
12:47:57 <raphael> is the black and white version of an image a different resource and not part of the primary version?
12:47:57 <nessy> I can only think of two ways of doing it: http://example.com/yyy or http://example.com/xxx?transcode
12:48:09 <nessy> yes
12:48:41 <nessy> even if the server creates the black and white version on the fly, it still requires a different URI to tell the server to create it
12:49:51 <mhausenblas> see http://ld2sd.deri.org/corrib/mftc.rdf
12:49:54 <nessy> we know that even trying to identify the same resource in different representations for different languages hasn't worked and people generally use index.en.html and index.de.html etc
12:50:27 <raphael> Raphael: silvia, one could argue this is a different representation of the same resource, just degraded, that could be serve with the same URI
12:51:11 <raphael> Raphael: Silvia, not in the SW world, and honnestly, content negotiation based on languages is very widely deployed on the web nowadays
12:52:06 <raphael> ACTION: Michael to add the missing test cases in corrib
12:52:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Add the missing test cases in corrib [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-09-16].
12:52:23 <raphael> Michael: but please, all, you should give it a try
12:52:50 <raphael> ACTION-93?
12:52:50 <trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Michael Hausenblas to revisit the TC and see which are effected by the temporal-optional-comma-decision -- due 2009-07-29 -- OPEN
12:52:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/93
12:53:21 <raphael> -- continue
12:53:26 <nessy> Accept-Language is part of http - there is no content negotiation for transcoding defined in http, so it can only work through query parameters with the current web
12:54:48 <raphael> Michael: I will add line number but not explicitely number for TC by next week
12:54:52 <raphael> zakim, who is making noise?
12:55:03 <Zakim> raphael, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: raphael (6%), wonsuk (6%), mhausenblas (5%), tmichel (19%)
12:55:11 <raphael> zakim, mute tmichel
12:55:11 <Zakim> tmichel should now be muted
12:55:44 <raphael> Michael: and I will complete my actions
12:56:10 <raphael> Topic: 5. ISSUES
12:56:14 <raphael> ACTION-82?
12:56:14 <trackbot> ACTION-82 -- Michael Hausenblas to flesh out TC vocabulary re ISSUE-9 -- due 2009-07-31 -- OPEN
12:56:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/82
12:56:31 <raphael> -- continue (still)
12:56:42 <raphael> Michael: but it is easier now that Corrib is in place
12:57:31 <raphael> close ACTION-82
12:57:31 <trackbot> ACTION-82 Flesh out TC vocabulary re ISSUE-9 closed
12:57:38 <raphael> we don't need it anymore
12:57:43 <raphael> but the iSSUE remains open
12:58:37 <raphael> Erik: Davy is wroking on his action and it will be ready for next week
12:58:41 <raphael> Topic: 6. AOB
12:58:53 <raphael> [silence]
12:59:52 <Zakim> -mhausenblas
12:59:56 <Zakim> -raphael
12:59:57 <Zakim> -Yves
12:59:57 <Zakim> -erik
12:59:58 <raphael> no telecon next week but the virtual f2f
13:00:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
13:00:12 <wonsuk> wonsuk has left #mediafrag
13:00:37 <Zakim> -wonsuk
13:00:41 <raphael> I think i know why I cannot have anymore AP, maybe because i have changed affiliation
13:00:48 <raphael> zakim, who is here?
13:00:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see tmichel
13:00:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see tmichel, erik, Zakim, RRSAgent, mhausenblas, nessy, trackbot, raphael, Yves
13:00:52 <raphael> zakim, drop tmichel
13:00:55 <Zakim> tmichel is being disconnected
13:00:56 <Zakim> IA_MFWG()8:00AM has ended
13:00:59 <Zakim> Attendees were +49.300.aaaa, wonsuk, +3539149aabb, raphael, mhausenblas, Yves, +329331aacc, erik, +49.238.aadd, tmichel
13:01:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
13:02:58 <Yves> not enough, you really looked tired ;)
13:03:32 <raphael> no, it was great silvia, we will discuss all that next week
13:03:46 <raphael> Yves, can you remove the 'draft', minutes looks good
13:04:37 <Yves> sure
13:04:45 <raphael> thx
13:05:13 <Yves> hope we were 9 people on the call, for consistency
13:08:58 <raphael> including the bots, yes :-)
13:09:03 <raphael> zakim, bye
13:09:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #mediafrag
13:09:19 <raphael> RRSAgent, bye
13:09:19 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-actions.rdf :
13:09:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: raphael to address all comments and write a reply to MAWG [1]
13:09:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-irc#T12-20-14
13:09:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Raphaël to address all comments and write a reply to MAWG [2]
13:09:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-irc#T12-20-36
13:09:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Raphaël to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG community [3]
13:09:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-irc#T12-22-40
13:09:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Troncy to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG community [4]
13:09:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-irc#T12-23-19
13:09:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Michael to add the missing test cases in corrib [5]
13:09:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-irc#T12-52-06