review of action items - https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/7

olivier: start with action-122

https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/122

<olivier> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Jul/0050.html

olivier: I've added a req to address it

<kaz> action-122?

<trackbot> action-122 -- Olivier Thereaux to Outline a requirement for offline content protection requirement based on UC8 and UC9 -- due 2013-07-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/122

olivier: but is good to know that content protection is controversial
... so will probably cause objections to some of the community
... anyway the req. is now on our list

<olivier> ACTION-122 CLOSED

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-122.

olivier: so we can close the action

<ddavis> giuseppe: Don't have time to work on this.

<ddavis> ... will try for the next call

<kaz> action-123?

<trackbot> action-123 -- Giuseppe Pascale to Propose change to UC6/7 to make it more generic -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/123

giuseppe: (talking about action-123)

<olivier> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Aug/0017.html

<kaz> action-124?

<trackbot> action-124 -- Sung Hei Kim to Hei Kim to confirm whether Terminal Use Case on TV Applications are already covered in current UC document -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/124

olivier: so next action is 124
... i think it was discussed over email, and seems this is covered
... can we close this? no objection

<olivier> ACTION-124 CLOSED

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-124.

<kaz> action-125?

<trackbot> action-125 -- Giuseppe Pascale to Draft use cases related to metadata -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/125

<ddavis> giuseppe: Still pending.

olivier: action-125

<kaz> action-126?

<trackbot> action-126 -- Olivier Thereaux to Edit media apis wiki, change intro to the metadata reference list -- due 2013-07-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/126

olivier: moving on to action-126
... about cleaning up the metadata section on the wiki. is done, can be closed

<olivier> ACTION-126 CLOSED

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-126.

<kaz> action-127?

<trackbot> action-127 -- Sheau Ng to Review use cases and requirements document, see whether there is any need for more use cases related to content sync -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/127

olivier: moving on with action-127

<kaz> action-128?

<trackbot> action-128 -- Sheau Ng to Draft table cross-referencing use cases and requirements -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/128

olivier: since Sheau is not here let's postpone it

<olivier> ACTION-128 CLOSED

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-128.

<olivier> https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/7

<kaz> action-129?

<trackbot> action-129 -- Bin Hu to Migrate requirements from UC 8 and 9 into requirements document -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/129

oivier: action-129, assigned to Bin

<olivier> ACTION-129 CLOSED

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-129.

Bin: is done, so we can close it

<kaz> action-130?

<trackbot> action-130 -- Giuseppe Pascale to Suggest timeline for Media APIs next step -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/130

<olivier> ACTION-130 CLOSED

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-130.

review TF timeline proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Aug/0028.html

olivier: last action has been done, is on the agenda for discussion, we can close it

<olivier> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Aug/0028.html

giuseppe: During the last couple of calls we discussed how to organise this
... There was a consensus - better to iterate over them to avoid discussing endlessly

giuseppe: First part of my mail described how each phase would be structured.
... First is use cases.
... Then get requirements - then do gap analysis
... We can find out whether the specs are covering all the requirements or not.
... Last phase is to consolidate everything into a note and share it with the relevant WGs.
... This process has been used before.
... First phase - use cases - has already been going for quite a while.
... After end of August, we won't consider more use cases.
... Time is limited because we've already one work on the first two phases.
... The next iteration will probably take more than four weeks.
... By start of October we should finalise this, by end of October we should finalise gap analysis ready to discuss it at TPAC.
... In other words, TPAC is the deadline.

<giuseppe> olivier: any comemnt on this?

<giuseppe> ... as giuseppe said, this is just one iteration

giuseppe: any comment? No comments. So we agree on the schedule

<scribe> ACTION: olivier to copy the timeline on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-133 - Copy the timeline on the wiki [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2013-08-28].

use cases / requirement table - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE&usp=drive_web

<olivier> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE&usp=drive_web

olivier: we are going to review the shared google doc

bin: I can introduce it, np
... the table is derived by the list of UCs and Reqs on the wiki
... it was generated to make it easy to see which UC derive which req
... the black cross is indicating that the mapping was agreed
... while the red and question mark are the one inserted by Sheau, for discussion
... let's review the open issues

<olivier> giuseppe: is this more of an app authentication requirement or device auth?

<olivier> np

ddavis, can you take on scribing?

I'm going to comment a lot :)

<ddavis> OK

thanks

Bin_Hu: Maybe we can split the requirement into three parts

giuseppe: Yes, because they're three different things

olivier: To apply this we need two things - to split this and to apply it to the use cases.
... Any volunteers to do these two tasks?

Bin_Hu: I can do that.

<olivier> ACTION: bin to split requirement 1.5 into 3, update the UC/Req table accordingly [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-webtv-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-134 - Split requirement 1.5 into 3, update the uc/req table accordingly [on Bin Hu - due 2013-08-28].

Bin_Hu: Moving on to the next point - line 14 req 1.12
... "Device-to-device content transfer"

olivier: I'm confused by JC's comment.
... He said "yes, with all the implied limitations"
... Does he means the transfer may not be allowed if there are some restrictions in place?

Bin_Hu: I think you're correct based on discussions we had back in May.
... We talked about content protection including paid content, parental controls.

giuseppe: I don't see the use case and the requirement match.
... There is no transfer between two devices in this use case.

<olivier> Use Case link: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases#8._.22Use_Case_Eight_.E2.80.93_Download_and_Go.22

Bin_Hu: In the use case no other device is involved.
... After discussion with JC we added offline requirements
... but the use case itself doesn't have the second device
... Conclusion is to remove the X and ?

olivier: sounds like consensus.
... I'm removing the comment.

Bin_Hu: Next is 1.16
... from use case no. 6
... about whether EPG also needs tuner control.
... JC wonders whether EPG is just another web app.
... Based on my reading of use case no. 6, web apps are apps that add content, not EPGs.

olivier: JC is right that there is overlap and there is a need for tuner control, but I don't see it as a problem that there's overlap between the use cases. They don't have exactly the same requirements.

giuseppe: I'll try to read these comments more by the next call.

Bin_Hu: If we need to merge or consolidate them we can do it later.

olivier: so leaving the X and ? for now.

Bin_Hu: Next is line 22 - req 1.20 - "Content protection"
... Use cases 4, 5, 6 have question marks.
... First is content sharing - seems to be obvious.

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases#4._.22Use_Case_Four_.E2.80.93_Content_Sharing.22

olivier: There is a bit in use case 4 about someone launching content. There would be some content protection but I don't see it as core to the use case.
... Seems more marginal than key.

Bin_Hu: I agree
... In the use case it mentions a shared video link. That's where it comes from.

Mark_Vickers: When there's content protection it doesn't mean it has to be used - it means it has to be allowed for.

olivier: Leaving the X there.

Bin_Hu: Next is content search.

<olivier> Content search UC: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases#5._.22Use_Case_Five_.E2.80.93_Content_Search.22

Bin_Hu: JC says no.

olivier: In this case I'd agree with JC. It doesn't look like content protection is needed in this case.

Bin_Hu: An example is a movie trailer.

olivier: Playing devil's advocate, for some people metadata about content is something you may want to protect.

Cyril: That kind of data is more about authentication than content protection - i.e. more crypto.

Mark_Vickers: I agree. It might be good to call content protection "media content protection" which is different to data protection.

<olivier> +1

Mark_Vickers: This makes it clear it doesn't apply to metadata.

olivier: Should we remove that part or give Sheau a chance to explain?

Bin_Hu: As a group remove it, but as a courtesy give him a heads up why we think it's not relevant. He can share his thoughts with the group if necessary.

olivier: How about adding a comment in that cell explaining the group's consensus?

Bin_Hu: OK
... Next is use case no. 7

olivier: I de-resolved it.

Bin_Hu: JC is not sure what Sheau means.

olivier: Any opinion in the group about this?

Mark_Vickers: I think +1. There will be cases where the live TV broadcast is using content protection.
... i.e. media content protection.
... That's part of the pre-requisite task.
... unless somebody was talking about downloads?

olivier: I don't think so.

Mark_Vickers: In that case it definitely applies. E.g. HBO is a content protected channel and has channel-bound applications.

olivier: So it looks like we have use cases where this does apply so yes to the X.
... No objections.
... I think that's all the question marks.
... One more thing...
... We have two use cases - 10 & 11 - for which associations have not been made.
... Either we go through it quickly or we get volunteers to do it.
... I prefer the latter, then we discuss any points of contention.
... Any volunteers?

<Mark_Vickers> I believe there is one more X missing for 1.22 Content Playback on UC9 Download and Go

olivier: I'll volunteer myself

<olivier> ACTION: olivier to fill UC/Req table for the columns of UC 10 and 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-webtv-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-135 - Fill uc/req table for the columns of uc 10 and 11 [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2013-08-28].

Mark_Vickers: Download and Go should be Watch and Record
... Although nothing says at a later time someone can playback the content, it's mandatory and should be added.

olivier: I agree, that seems obvious.

Bin_Hu: Me too - it's implicit.

Mark_Vickers: We should add it to the use case.

<olivier> ACTION: Mark to add "playback" to use case 9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-webtv-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> 'Mark' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., mvickers2, mwatson2).

<olivier> ACTION: Mvicker2 to add "playback" to use case 9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-webtv-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Error finding 'Mvicker2'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/users>.

<olivier> ACTION: Mvickers2 to add "playback" to use case 9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-webtv-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-136 - Add "playback" to use case 9 [on Mark Vickers - due 2013-08-28].

olivier: Based on that, if there are no other questions I suggest we adjourn for today.
... We should stick to one hour.

AOB

olivier: I'd like to make sure everyone's happy with the next meeting being on the 4th September. Anybody unable to make it?
... One more thing...
... Does anyone want to go through the TPAC registration requirement?

giuseppe: Kaz shared all the information to the list.
... Follow that and please register.

<kaz> TPAC page

giuseppe: We'll have a one-day meeting for this group on Tuesday to not overlap with the Web and Broadcasting group (on Monday)

ddavis: Please do it early because you may need a visa and a letter from Beihang University.

giuseppe: One other AOB is a tooling point.

<kaz> question on invitation letter

giuseppe: I think Google Docs works quite well so should we move the use cases over to Google Docs as well?
... For me, it lowers the barrier to commenting, at least for this group which is not a long-standing group.

ddavis: I'd be happy as long as it doesn't require a third-party (non-W3C) account.

giuseppe: A third-party account is only required for the person who creates the document.

olivier: I'm happy with either but we should make sure we keep a backup copy.

<kaz> +1

olivier: W3C has a strong policy - we don't want things disappearing.

ddavis: My only concern is that we avoid having too many documents in too many places.

giuseppe: I agree but it's better than using email attachments.

olivier: We can make sure the wiki points to the new version of the document.

<kaz> +1

giuseppe: I'll volunteer to update the Google Docs link.
... But is the wiki only editable by Team members?

olivier: No, it should be editable by anybody

Bin_Hu: In my experience I needed a W3C account to edit the wiki.

olivier: I think you can get a public account to do that.
... Giuseppe, why would that concern you? Our use cases/requirements do not have strong IPR issues.

giuseppe: In general we're not accepting contributions from non-members.
... The other solution is just to have one editor.
... In this case, I could copy the document and allow someone to be the editor and others can comment on it.

olivier: Sounds like a good plan.
... Any other business?
... OK, we are adjourned. Good meeting & talk to you in two weeks.

<olivier> thanks ddavis, giuseppe for scribing

<kaz> [ adjourned ]