See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 08 April 2009
<raphael> Scribe: Silvia
<raphael> scribenick: nessy
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 01st April 2009 telecon:
http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-mediafrag-minutes.html
<raphael> +1
<davy> +1
raphael: no teleconf next week
but F2F on Thu & Fri
... no teleconf the week after F2F because of WWW conf
... next teleconf is on 29th April
... any objections?
nessy: no objections
raphael: this hour is more convenient for Silvia & Conrad
raphael: we keep this hour
Agenda building
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/ThirdF2FAgenda
scribe: will assume until 2pm it
is reasonable to have Silvia on phone
... will make proposal to put discussion points into time
slots
... a discussion on each section of the WD
nessy: suggestion to have another
HTTP 2-way / 4-way discussion to get Conrad's input
... wants to be present for that
raphael: is planned and will take place in the morning
raphael: go through section per
section and distribute actions
... Introduction
nessy: volunteers to write the introduction
<scribe> ACTION: nessy to write introduction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/08-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - nessy
<scribe> ACTION: silvia to write introduction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/08-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Write introduction [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2009-04-15].
raphael: discussion on order of the first three sections
<raphael> Silvia: i need to revisit the framework, side conditions
<raphael> ... re: issue with transcoding
<raphael> ... this should go first
<raphael> ... and then talk about the use cases and scenarios and ultimately, the dimensions
jackjansen: if requirements move up, we need something that gets people in the right frame of mind
<raphael> Jack: put the requirements first might break the flow of the reading
Silvia: most sections are still
independent blocks
... we need lead-over text
... introduction will set the stage, requirements set the
framework
Jack: maybe move use cases into appendix
raphael: use cases are core to
the understanding or our challenges and provide motivation for
the dimensions
... might be interesting to move the "requirements" up - might
be renamed to "side conditions"
Jack: agrees to move up "side
conditions"
... requirements are really section 5
raphael: new order is 1, 2, 4, 3,
5
... rename 4 -> side conditions
... rename 5 -> requirements
nessy: agree
Jack: agree
<raphael> +1
<erik> what about typical UC per axis (temporal/spatial/track/named) to get the reader acquainted with the problems (and special cases to appendix)?
<scribe> ACTION: silvia to make these changes and other changes to sections 1-5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/08-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Make these changes and other changes to sections 1-5 [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2009-04-15].
raphael will make structural changes to WD directly after the teleconf
scribe: silvia can then work on it when she has time
erik: there are a lot of use cases and it may be interesting to move some to appendix
<raphael> Erik: i wonder if the individual use cases should be ordered differently, following the various dimensions: time, space, track, name
<raphael> Silvia: I think it is better to group them as they are, by functionality
erik: they make for fast reading and need to be part of the reading flow
raphael: what about moving the out-of-scope cases into a separate section
jack: I like it that the use
cases are ordered by usage
... problem is that there are so many and they slow down
reading speed
... 17 different use cases may be too much detail
raphael: original charter had 2
documents - a use cases & requirements ... and a technology
document
... we now have all in one document
... we can later split documents again if it is too much to
read
... can discuss at F2F
... should leave it for now
... so we have the current status together in a single
document
jack: ok leave it as is
nessy: agree
raphael: section 5
... replace the numbers with req-xx
... and move the table to an appendix
<raphael> Raphael: replace the 1,2,3 in the fitness table by human readable labels: fit, partial, etc.
jack: instead of having the table 5.5, it makes more sense to list the types of capabilities containers have
nessy to add a note to the table & running text that we ask people for input to the table to complete it
<raphael> Silvia: add also an editorial note in the main text to warn the commnity we need their input to complete this table
nessy: I will add these changes
raphael: section 6
... improved heaps
erik: if we should move stuff to
appendix, we can live with that
... table in 6.3 still needs heaps of input
raphael: MPEG-7 has track references
nessy: HTML5 should be removed,
since it will do whatever we define
... replace "temporal URI" with "temporal URI/Ogg" to include
the track addressing, to
... "Annodex" would be correct, too, but "temporal URI" is the
best known spec out of this
raphael: should section 6 be moved down in the document, so we can get specifications first?
erik: I can live with that
raphael: I will move this section down and do all structural changes on document directly after the meeting before anyone else will edit again
jack: editorial suggestion - 6.2
is formatted completely different from 6.1
... formatting of 6.1 is great - could we apply it to 6.2 ?
erik: will make changes
<scribe> ACTION: erik to apply changes to section 6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/08-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Apply changes to section 6 [on Erik Mannens - due 2009-04-15].
raphael: section 7
... in section 7.3 we stop talking about fragments, but talk
about sections or segments
... 7.3 needs an introductory note
jack: I will create an
introductory note and explain that it can be either a fragment
or a query
... we need some standard terminology
raphael: do we call it dimensions or axis
general consensus on "dimension
jack: do we prefer "temporal"
over "time" - "spatial" over "space" - "named" over
"name"?
... track will stay track
<raphael> +1
jack: all others become "temporal", "spatial", "named"
nessy: +1
jack: I tend to use "clipping"
for temporal and "cropping" for spatial
... is that a good idea or should we just use one?
nessy: "clipping" has a different implication for audio ... maybe "cutting"?
jack: but we use "audio clip"
nessy: ok, fair enough
jack: 7.4 might need more
structure ... but how
... is still very incomplete
... need to continue collecting semantic issues
<raphael> Semantic issue: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3
jack: restructure when we have a more complete collection
nessy: suggestion to add a note to the section explaining the need to contribute more semantic issues
jack: ok, will do
raphael: section 8
... Yves pointed out that 4-way contained errors
Yves: did not understand from temporal URI where the resolution of time-bytes happens
nessy: I will go back and read that section again and make sure the 4-way is correctly specified
<scribe> ACTION: silvia and conrad to review 4-way handshake specification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/08-mediafrag-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - And conrad to review 4-way handshake specification [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2009-04-15].
<Yves> and I note that there is still a discussion on the ML ;)
raphael: should reply be 204 in initial handshake for 4-way handshake
Yves: if you're sending content, then no
jack: that is missing in the specification
nessy: header is being sent in first handshake
jack: in 2-way handshake this may be missing, too - but it's more complicated
raphael: silvia & conrad - please make changes in wiki ... I will then sync the wiki with the WD myself
nessy: ok
<raphael> ACTION-55?
<trackbot> ACTION-55 -- Yves Lafon to change the formal grammar to have 'percent' spelled -- due 2009-04-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/55
<raphael> close ACTION-55
<trackbot> ACTION-55 Change the formal grammar to have 'percent' spelled closed
<raphael> ACTION-56?
<trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Yves Lafon to change the formal grammar to have unreserved characters + %-escaped ones in utf8string and _not_ a set of pchars -- due 2009-04-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/56
<raphael> close ACTION-56
<trackbot> ACTION-56 Change the formal grammar to have unreserved characters + %-escaped ones in utf8string and _not_ a set of pchars closed
close ACTION-55
<trackbot> ACTION-55 Change the formal grammar to have 'percent' spelled closed
<raphael> Yves: I have just done a small modification in the ABNF synta
Yves: I added pchar to make it consistent
<raphael> Jack: to move these changes in the WD
<raphael> ACTION-49?
<trackbot> ACTION-49 -- Yves Lafon to draft the HTTP-Range syntax for different units (completing all the syntax for the two way handshake) -- due 2009-03-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/49
still open
<raphael> close ACTION-51
<trackbot> ACTION-51 Summarize the content of the wiki page to put in the main document, with few examples and a short story closed
erik finalized that
<raphael> ACTION-57?
<trackbot> ACTION-57 -- Jack Jansen to enter formally in the tracker the ISSUE he has found, regarding a) transcoding and b) spatial cropping -- due 2009-04-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/57
<raphael> close ACTION-57
<trackbot> ACTION-57 Enter formally in the tracker the ISSUE he has found, regarding a) transcoding and b) spatial cropping closed
jack finalized 57
raphael: we will not publish
document tomorrow
... let's aim for publication on Tuesday
... would prefer making the request to publish it before the
F2F because the WWW conference will delay it further
otherwise
nessy: +1
raphael: thanks for attending conference and will see you next week
<raphael> will give it a try
<raphael> type: s/Topic: Actions Review/Topic: Actions Review