Web and TV IG: GGIE meeting

17 Jun 2015

See also: IRC log


Gleen Dean, Bill Rose, Mark Vickers, Giuseppe Pascale, Dale Rochon, Giri Mandyam, Leslie Daigle, Paul Higgs, Nilo Mitra, Andrew Zamler-Carhart, Kaz Ashimura, Yosuke Funahashi, Daniel Davis


I'll be joining the call soon. I'm in the Zakim call for the first few minutes in case anyone dials into it.

<azamlerc_> Hi folks

<digitaldale> Howdy

<azamlerc_> Andrew Zamler-Carhart from Cisco, currently in Japan

<azamlerc_> (just dialing in now)

<glennd> andrew can you hear me on weber?

<glennd> webex?

<yosuke> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5323f17526166cdad8fb361428128644

<kaz> scribe: Bill

<yosuke> reference

<digitaldale> so we would be describing multiple technologies to be utilized for these use cases

Glenn reviewed the responses from NHK and JBA to the Use Cases and general scope, process, etc.

See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2015Jun/0005.html for the questions NHK/JBA posed and GGIE’s responses including additional comments/edits from today’s call.

Standardization Process: How will GGIE work with other SDOs?

<glennd> GGIE will deliver GAP analysis to WEB and TV IG during TPAC/Sapporo on missing features and recommendations as to which SDO’s scope aligns.

<glennd> Suggestions: Develop prototype charters describing features we are asking them to consider working on.

<yosuke> Takes a long time to get liaison. Should identify potential SDOs and have members that support the work initiate discussions within the SDO.

Glenn noted that other organizations are beginning to discuss similar issues to GGIE’s work.

Involving streaming media stakeholders: e.g. YouTube/Google, Netflix.

<glennd> No response from Netflix to date. If we have any contacts at Netflix Glenn will speak to them. Problem has been finding the right contact.

<glennd> Clearly some companies have solved some of these issues to overcome gaps/problems. Issues: It may be seen as a competitive advantage they are unwilling to share with competitors/SDOs.

Sharing metadata across stakeholders


How to move intelligence to edge.

Action Item - Yosuke: Will speak to reps to find out to whom we should speak at Google and arrange conversation or Glenn.

Action Item: Daniel will look for contacts at Netflix and Google through W3C AC.

Overlaps with TV-Anytime in concept/scope architecture. CRID (Content Reference ID), user metadata, authority, resolution providers, etc.

<glennd> Many concepts in GGIE are borrowed from related efforts. Goal is not to reinvent but to see what features currently exist and identify what can be added.

Question (Call-in User 3 – name unknown): Are we going to investigate all available technologies and identify gaps?

<glennd> We are not in a position to investigate all technologies, etc. We can identify what we are aware of that is already in use to meet the UCs and identify GAPS based on what we are aware of.

<digitaldale> Will there be cases where there are multiple solutions to a UC?

<glennd> We are limited in scope to use-cases and not specific technology selection. We expect there are many solutions to choose from. We will identify common features across the technologies that enable the UC to be implemented as well as GAPS/features that are not available via standards. Proprietary solutions would not constitute a standards-based solution.

<yosuke> Japanese companies/organizations see overlap between GGIE and TV-Anytime at a high level.

<glennd> Our UCs are broad and may overlap in some areas, not others.

<yosuke> We are identifying things we want to be able to do in the future. Some UCs are currently being implemented, others extend the concepts/solutions.

<glennd> GGIE is looking at end-to-end digital video. Includes UCs capturing what is done today, as well as looking forward. By understanding what can be done today we hope to identify GAPs that may preclude new features/services to meet future needs.

<gmandyam> Would an example showing gaps be helpful?

<glennd> Have not yet done the GAP analysis yet so not at that point yet.

Action Item: Giri will draft some wording and distribute it to the reflector. (Glenn: make it clear that the work was done in another W3C group, not GGIE).

General Comments on UCs: What are the boundaries of the ecosystem (UCs) we are addressing?

<glennd> Are there boundaries?

<MarkVickers> Is it appropriate to state GGIE’s scope is on the entire E2E?

<glennd> There is a lot that is out of scope. Does not include features of particular steps in the E2E process which are only local to those steps. GGIE will not work on editing, dubbing, etc., except where there is an impact on the larger E2E workflow e.g. a content ID may enable integrating the editing cycle with capture and distribution. GGIE’s scope is about movements of digital media data and metadata from E2E

<digitaldale> Is there any implication/impact on workflows or is it just about movement?

<glennd> Movement does cover workflows.

<digitaldale> Management of workflows?

<glennd> Workflows gets into industry specific issues which are out of scope (what happens “in the box”)

<digitaldale> Is there another place where that is being worked on?

<glennd> Not sure who is working on it today.

<digitaldale> We have an area where independent workflows have had success. But when you get into long tail distribution, common workflows powers the distribution. When 2 entities do it differently it impacts distribution.

<glennd> Good point but out of scope for GGIE. The hope is that e.g. the standard content identifier will assist in driving more standards in that area.

<digitaldale> May be covered by AMWA (Editor: AMAW = Advanced Media Workflow Association?)

Action Item: Dale to put together some specific text and distribute it to the reflector.

How to involve non-professional users?

Any ideas to make home/hobby creators to follow the UCs when they upload or distribute content on the net?

<glennd> One of the challenges is finding where non-pro users stop being non-pro. Very blurry line. GGIE believes that the pro-UCs we capture today will become relevant to non-pros as they adopt pro tools and abilities.

<Paul_Higgs> Covers tools but not movement.

<digitaldale> Non-pros don’t have the budget to buy pro-tools. e.g. IDs: There will be pro-IDs and non-pro-IDs. EIDR and AdID are pro-IDs.

<glennd> When upload to YouTube, Google assigns an ID for you for free.

<digitaldale> Non-pro tends to be individual use, pro is multi-application use. YouTube is just for YouTube. Pro crosses many boundaries/uses.

<glennd> When non-pros select an Internet service to upload their content they should be able to get an ID assigned and gain access to GGIE features through the service providers.

<digitaldale> Consumers are not as interested in metrics, etc., as pros and therefore less interested in distribution and metadata associated with distribution.

<glennd> I think it is not related to the question.

<gmandyam> There are technologies that consumers can access but there are limits e.g. consumers are not accessing broadcast distribution. In scope for broadband distribution not broadcast.

<glennd> GGIE is pro and consumer. NBCU does use consumer generated content in e.g. news, so having it flow easily is important. There is a blending at the boundaries and those boundaries are moving toward the pro side. Some consumers are also generating substantial income from their content. We try to find common needs of both types of users.

<digitaldale> The term “non-professional” may not be appropriate since many consumers are generating income.

<glennd> Boundary may be more along the lines of the equipment, tools, etc. that are used.

Viewer reviews on video content can be considered as a type of metadata for video content (Cid) generated by users (Uid)

Is this in scope?

<glennd> Uid and metadata are in scope.

Continue discussion on the reflector.

Terminal or household ID sometimes more convenient or fit actual UCs better than user ID.

What does the TF think about this? Personalization is becoming more important. Must address privacy implications.

Continue discussion on reflector.

Any other business

See Response document for Glenn’s responses to issues we did not get to on this call.

Continue discussion on reflector.

Next call

Next Call: July 1st

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/06/29 15:57:03 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/two/few/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: ddavis
Found Scribe: Bill

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: Kaz Daniel Glenn Bill Giuseppe Dale Leslie Yosuke Andrew Giri Mark Nilo

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 17 Jun 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-webtv-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]