See also: IRC log
<glennd> Agenda:
<glennd> 1. Review & approval of March 11th call minutes (http://www.w3.org/2015/03/11-webtv-minutes.html)
<glennd> 2. Agenda Bash
<glennd> 3. Review of new discovery use cases: https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/User_Discovery
glenn: this is the only call in a
month as we skipped last call
... does anyone object to approve last meeting minutes? no
objection, so approved
glenn: new use cases around user
discovery content
... let's go over the usecases, I would like people while
looking at the use cases to think if there are gaps in existing
standard work
... that prevents us from covering these use cases
... let's bill present the new UCs
<kaz> Use Case Wiki
bill: UC1
the basic idea is to include some client information in order to improve the search results
so a user would usually include search criteria like title, actors etc while the client could automatically append information on codecs, license etc
this would avoid search results that cannot ultimately be played for whatever reason
bill: there could be a difference between the license that the user have and one that the client have. I'm not sure
glenn: I'm not sure there is a
standard to represent either of them
... I'm not aware of any device profile
paul: maybe something in DLNA, loosely
bill: yes there should be
something in DLNA
... but that is for the home network, not sure if that
information leaves the HN
(bill and paul discuss DLNA profiles)
so: there is also some discussion in ATSC about this, maybe there is an opportunity for some coordination
yyy: is there something in bluetooth?
glenn: not sure, but also a good
place to look
... so it seems we have identified a potential gap, i.e. there
isn't a standard to define what a device support
... and also there isn't a standard way to respond to a request
that would include a device profile
... also there is no standard to send this device profile to a
server
leslie: is it time also to discuss privacy?
bill: yes, I added in the UC the
possibility that the user could configure the device not to
send all the device information
... to preserve privacy
glenn: there are probably
different levels of information and hence privacy
... serivces I'm subscribed to VS device capabilities for
examples
... there could also be restrictions based on the networks I'm
on, e.g. home network VS out of home
bill: so at least two level of
privacy, user client and network provider
... there is also a difference on where different info get
configured /selected, e.g. an app UI VS device UI
glenn: from a device standpoint,
I may allow an app to search on different networks and inside
the device aggregate the results
... when we come back to discuss about network layer, would be
good to discuss a UC around caching in case of multiple
networks e.g. when a device have 3 networks but local cache
only have access to two
bill: another option, more privacy savy, is to get all the metadata and make the decision on what can be played locally
glenn: let's move to UC2
bill: UC2 is about using a second
screen (mobile) to search for content I want to watch on my
first screen (TV)
... so is related to the previous one but here the device
sending out information is not the same client playing the
content
... to do this we probably need to get the TV profile in a
similar way we needed before
... actually looking at UC2 again is not what I just
described
... is more about using the tablet/phone to control UI the
TV
... so this is actually simple and similar to UC1
giuseppe: is it worth to have UC2 as a separate UC? can we merge it with UC1
glenn: maybe still worth, in UC2
could have some privacy concerns,
... maybe I'm at a hotel room and I don't want to share my
device preferences with the hotel TV set
... is there a standard to control a TV?
giuseppe: I agree there could be a gap here but aren't we extending the scope too much?
glenn: good point, but we can
first collect the use cases and then make a final filtering at
the end
... based on priorities
... move on on UC3
bill: so UC3, I have multiple
devices in my home
... and I want to find content that is suitable for multiple
devices
... e.g. I have a movie I want to watch
and I want to be able to make some sort of supersearch to know if that is playable on any of the device in the home
scribe: one option is to do
multiple searches
... but that would be more cumbersome and I would have to
repeat it for each device
... so would be more convenient to do one research for all, and
would be also good to do it once but capture all the
differences, e.g. in network connections and capabilites
glenn: so we need to be able to
express playback capabilites, network capabilities,
offline/online capabilites, in home/out of home
capabilities
... an immediate gap I can see I'm not able to disambiguate
between different search results, e.g. I have spiderman DVD VS
spiderman on ABC
... so we don't have a standard to express different offers for
the same content
bill: also from a content
perspective, e.g. ad based VS pay
... now if I do local matching and filtering, I need to get all
the info
<ldaigle> internet.net or whatever
<ldaigle> zero rating
<mark_vickers> who is here?
dale: we should also consider
sponsorship
... ... e.g. if I'm part of a sponsor group I may get some
content for free or at a better bandwith
glenn: so one think we would luck is a way to express a sponsorhip model
bill: would be a more complex version of the cost option
glenn: no more comments on UC1-3
<kaz> [ web&tv ig charter includes CEA and ATSC in the list of external groups to liaise ]
<kaz> [ while the liaison table has ATSC but not CEA ]
glenn: AP to explore potential liaison with CEA
glenn: I encourage all new
members to read the GGIE main page for a better understanding
of what we want to do and how we want to work, see here
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF
... in a nutshell, we now are trying to collect gaps, later we
envision to send request to various groups