16:01:42 RRSAgent has joined #tt 16:01:42 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/09-tt-irc 16:01:45 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:01:46 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:01:50 scribe: nigel 16:02:48 pal has joined #tt 16:04:51 cyril has joined #tt 16:05:15 Present: Gary, Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Pierre, Nigel 16:05:26 Chair: Gary, Nigel 16:05:44 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2021/11/11-tt-minutes.html 16:05:50 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/204 16:06:52 Topic: This meeting 16:08:21 Nigel: Today we have IMSC HRM and Rechartering, hopefully quite speedily, then Netflix TTAL/Dubbing. 16:08:24 .. Anything else to raise? 16:08:38 group: [no other business] 16:08:46 Topic: IMSC HRM 16:09:09 Nigel: Good progress since we last met - we've done the prep work for requesting Horizontal Review, 16:09:19 .. and for requesting Wide Review, work is in progress. 16:09:51 .. We agreed to switch on WD auto-pub on PR merge. Is that working? 16:10:01 Atsushi: Should work, need to validate by merging a PR. 16:10:43 Nigel: I see https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/16 - not ready yet, but Pierre requested a change. 16:10:50 Pierre: Okay, we can go over that quickly. 16:11:00 .. The issue is referencing specific paragraphs or sections of another document. 16:11:19 .. It has proven to be a maintenance nightmare, because if the referenced doc gets restructured those references go bad. 16:11:35 .. I think we should try to avoid referencing specific sections as much as possible. 16:11:54 .. For this particular document, and terminology, all we need to do is say we are using terms defined in IMSC and TTML2. 16:12:05 .. I am not sure if we need to link piecemeal to terms defined in those other specs. 16:12:22 .. What I'd like to propose is removing the terms already defined in IMSC and TTML2, and replacing with a generic 16:12:24 .. sentence. 16:12:51 .. Alternatively, we could provide a hyperlink to the term def in TTML2 and IMSC, but the drawback is that if it changes 16:13:06 .. in those documents the links go dead, so that's not super helpful. I'm open to suggestions but I think we should avoid 16:13:09 .. hard coding section numbers. 16:13:28 q+ for +1 to remove sections, but would keep list 16:14:16 Nigel: I'm a little uncomfortable with removing the term defs; the classical solution is to use fragment ids rather than section numbers. 16:14:25 ack at 16:14:25 atsushi, you wanted to discuss +1 to remove sections, but would keep list 16:14:37 Atsushi: My point is the same as Nigel's I suppose. 16:14:59 .. Ideally I would like to +1 to remove detailed section numbers, but I think we can get some benefit to collect internal links for 16:15:15 .. definitions so I'd like to keep the list. 16:16:18 Nigel: Is the proposal to change "Document Instance. See Section 2.2 at [ttml2]." with 16:16:31 .. "Document Instance. As defined by [ttml2]." ? 16:16:34 Atsushi: Yes 16:16:42 Nigel: How would that work for you Pierre? 16:16:54 Pierre: Would we have a link to the anchor in TTML2. 16:17:03 Nigel: I think we'd just link to the spec. 16:17:12 Pierre: So "see [ttml2 16:17:18 .. That works for me. 16:17:21 Nigel: Yes. 16:17:50 .. Okay, so Atsushi will you change the PR and then we can check the auto-publish works? 16:17:57 Atsushi: Yes I'll update the pull request. 16:18:33 Subtopic: Are we ready to initiate the HR and WR process now? 16:18:40 Nigel: And then are we ready to initiate HR? 16:18:55 Atsushi: I have opened the issues and tagged them, except with TAG. 16:19:38 .. We have a strong drawback from i18n that we are requesting HR while preparing WR and targeting quick CR transition. 16:19:54 .. Also they asked for a diff compared to the HRM spec in IMSC. 16:20:02 Pierre: Can you provide a link to that comment? 16:20:13 https://www.w3.org/2021/12/09-i18n-minutes.html#t07 16:20:24 Atsushi: The i18n WG just met in the hour before this, so the minutes are still in draft. 16:21:07 Nigel: I don't think we have suggested trying to bypass the normal timescales for HR. 16:21:45 Pierre: In those minutes you said you weren't sure if it is a review for a self-review or a document - what did you mean? 16:22:06 Atsushi: There are two reviews, one on FPWD publication, the other just before CR. 16:22:15 .. Sorry I was scribing and talking, so could not scribe well. 16:22:45 .. I sent the review as the result of self-check. And we want review for CR. 16:22:52 Pierre: We just want them to review the document. 16:23:23 Atsushi: For the past 2 years no such request has existed, to get quick transition to CR. 16:23:37 Pierre: My suggestion would be to keep it very simple and just ask the i18n group for their review. 16:24:11 Atsushi: Yes, review for a full spec is usually right before CR, and i18n including me somehow finds it a little strange that 16:24:21 .. CR transition is expected before WR. 16:24:28 Nigel: Where did that expectation come from? 16:24:36 Atsushi: I think I heard at some meeting. 16:25:17 Nigel: I think that's a misunderstanding. That would be against the process - we expect this to be quick, but within the normal process. 16:25:26 Atsushi: Usually there is a long time after FPWD to CR. 16:25:40 Pierre: I'm confused by why we are discussing this. We have just asked them for their review. 16:25:55 .. We are not going to bypass, but if they do not start the review we cannot make progress. 16:26:01 .. I don't know why this is an issue. 16:26:32 Atsushi: One point is that there is some fear of change due to Wide Review responses. 16:28:06 Nigel: If we need to request a re-review following WR comments, then we will, for the delta. 16:28:23 .. There's no intention to proceed to CR without the right opportunity to review. 16:28:37 Pierre: What would be the reason to delay a review? If they do not start, then that will add delay to the process. 16:29:13 Atsushi: Reviewing a whole spec is costly to the HR group. They usually take these actions as late as possible in spec development. 16:29:59 Nigel: Let's take this offline - I am happy to discuss with the chairs of i18n. 16:30:18 .. There's usually a lot of discussion about how HR is begun too late not too early. 16:30:33 Atsushi: To clarify, if this is a self-check review after FPWD it is quite welcome. 16:30:50 .. If it will be developed as a version prior to CR then it's welcome to review as a spec for CR, 16:30:58 .. but mixing these two is confusing for horizontal groups. 16:31:12 Nigel: Okay, let's draw this to a close and I will follow up offline. 16:31:47 Atsushi: I really understand TTWG would want to bring this to a later phase of spec in a shorter time. 16:31:58 .. There could be some possible chance of change through wide review. 16:32:19 Nigel: I'm going to move on with the agenda now. 16:32:31 Subtopic: Issues 16:32:37 Nigel: Do we have any issues we need to cover? 16:32:44 group: [no] 16:33:07 Topic: Rechartering status update 16:33:26 Nigel: I think we maybe missed a deadline and now we need to request an extension to the current Charter? 16:33:55 Atsushi: I believe it has gone to W3M but I lost track last week, apologies. 16:33:59 .. I will check with Philippe. 16:34:03 Nigel: Ok. 16:35:04 .. Is there anything else to be said? I think the proposed draft charter is in a good state. 16:35:20 .. Thank you Atsushi for your work getting it into that state. 16:35:43 Topic: Netflix TTAL/Dubbing workflow and profile 16:35:57 Nigel: Can I hand over to you Cyril to take us through it? 16:36:06 Cyril: This is the first time I've taken the group through this? 16:36:07 Nigel: Correvt 16:36:10 c/v/c 16:36:43 Cyril: Netflix posted a technical blog introducing TTAL 16:36:45 https://netflixtechblog.com/introducing-netflix-timed-text-authoring-lineage-6fb57b72ad41 16:37:03 .. The challenge when you author dubbing is ensuring consistency in the scripts, 16:37:12 .. so the process of authoring dubs is described in the figure in the post. 16:37:20 .. You start with content that is first transcribed. 16:37:34 .. The purpose is to write down what is said or text on the screen, without translation. 16:37:42 .. Then in the context of dubbing it gets translated and adapted, 16:37:53 .. adapted meaning matching lip movements, speed of lips and so on. 16:38:04 .. That phase produces a script which we call the "pre-recording" script. 16:38:17 .. Then after that the actor doing the voice might change some words. 16:38:24 .. We collect an "as recorded" script to match. 16:38:46 .. In the past we collected these scripts in a wide variety of formats, from Excel sheets, to images and text files. 16:38:59 .. We have been working with some of our vendors to get to a format that is common. 16:39:10 .. It's called TTAL, and the initial file format is a JSON format. 16:39:23 .. After that we talked to other studios and there's a willingness to standardise this work, 16:39:38 .. and TTML seems perfect, so we're happy to give up on the JSON and switch to TTML. 16:39:51 .. I started to work on a prototype of what the specification would look like, based on TTML. 16:39:58 .. [shows a draft spec on screen] 16:40:06 .. The idea is to leverage TTML and IMSC as much as possible. 16:40:14 .. This defines a profile of TTML for dubbing workflows. 16:40:41 .. The way the draft spec is structured is that section 4 would be kept, and section 6 describes the mapping to TTML. 16:40:46 s/6/5 16:40:52 .. That is up for description. 16:40:57 s/description/discussion 16:41:12 .. The scripts have types, like Original Language Dialogue List, 16:41:23 .. Translated Dialogue List (sometimes called "Pivot") 16:41:37 .. then the pre-recorded script and the As-recorded script. 16:41:43 .. Then the script has events and characters. 16:42:02 .. The characters have a name as in the show, a possible style, and maybe a real person. 16:42:29 .. An event might have the original language as well as the translation, which we call "contextual" text. 16:42:48 .. Then we have some adaptations like a description, textual description of the events, like a scene name. 16:42:59 .. Then an indication of if the character is on or off screen, or moving. 16:43:14 .. The TTAL format is very simple. There's a profile identifier, a namespace for potential new attributes. 16:43:34 .. It's important that, for exchange, we allow vendor specific proprietary metadata. 16:43:38 .. The document structure: 16:43:56 .. Top level is a tt element with a content profiles attribute. 16:44:03 .. Metadata showing the type of script. 16:44:19 .. An ttm:agent for each characters, maybe linked with ttm:actor 16:44:37 .. As a suggestion, a set of styles linking from each agent - it is not standard, and could be removed if not useful. 16:44:56 .. For each event, a div with a begin and end, link to the style, an agent, some metadata including ttm:desc, 16:45:12 .. and what's important is the main text, e.g. Brazilian Portuguese, and then context text, here in French. 16:45:54 .. This isn't about layout, but we based it on IMSC, because it may be useful to include some styling. 16:46:00 .. [shows an example] 16:46:13 .. I wrote a javascript tool to convert the json to TTML. 16:46:37 .. Oh, demo effect, this one doesn't work! 16:46:44 .. I started working on a requirements document. 16:47:10 .. It is still an internal document. 16:47:20 .. For example "define a list of events" 16:47:28 .. "describe characters" 16:47:30 .. etc. 16:47:41 .. I tried to convert a TTAL document into a set of requirements. 16:47:51 .. Current status is I am getting approval, and when I can I will share it. 16:48:02 .. Question for Nigel: What is the process to send these documents to W3C? 16:48:16 .. Does it have to be in a WG GitHub repo first, or does it not matter. 16:48:44 Nigel: I don't think there's a single way. 16:48:58 .. I did something similar for ADPT. 16:49:10 Cyril: By the way, Netflix is happy to merge this with the Audio Description Profile. 16:49:17 Nigel: Okay, that's great news. 16:49:36 .. What I did for that was, in the AD Community Group, which I set up first, I created the requirements doc 16:49:55 .. in a GitHub repo owned by that group, and sent it round for wide review. 16:51:00 .. I'm not sure exactly what the Process requirements are, but I think when we want to work on this 16:51:21 .. and get review, for example, we do need something in a Group-owned space. 16:51:53 Cyril: [shows example, working this time] 16:52:25 .. How it looks is that there's a head with metadata. 16:52:35 .. It's work in progress - I tried using EBU metadata, that may be a better way to do it. 16:52:48 .. Then what is in nttm: is a Netflix-proprietary namespace. 16:52:54 .. All the characters are defined with names. 16:53:02 .. There's a default style for all the text. 16:53:12 .. In this show there is no original text. 16:53:44 Nigel: Just looking at the time, I think we have the idea - just want to make sure we have time for discussion, if 16:53:49 .. anyone has any questions or thoughts. 16:53:53 Cyril: Sure 16:53:54 q+ for adpt repo is owned by adcg and ttwg? (sorry muted locally) 16:53:59 ack at 16:53:59 atsushi, you wanted to discuss adpt repo is owned by adcg and ttwg? (sorry muted locally) 16:54:26 Atsushi: ADPT repo is owned by ADCG and TTWG? It is stated as TTWG, originally by ADCG. 16:54:40 Nigel: Yes, we did a sort of handover. 16:54:43 Atsushi: Yes 16:55:09 .. Maybe we are better to update the details: theoretically it is ours. 16:55:13 Nigel: Yes 16:55:32 .. Do you have a thought on how to bring these Netflix requirements in? 16:56:43 .. I think we should have a pragmatic approach to merging the requirements with the AD requirements, 16:56:53 .. if necessary renaming ADPT, and come up with a solution that works. 16:57:07 Cyril: I can share to members a PDF of the document I have now, and then Nigel, you and I can work on 16:57:11 .. merging the requirements. 16:57:16 Nigel: Yes, that works for me. 16:57:26 .. Then we can hopefully agree as a group to take on this work. 16:57:43 .. I think it would be a good service to the industry, and talking to people in my network, 16:57:48 .. I think they would support it. 16:58:27 .. Although we don't have loud voices here other than Netflix and BBC, I predict others would like to do it. 16:58:42 Cyril: I'm talking to Amazon about it, who are also supportive. 16:58:58 Nigel: Any other comments or questions? 16:59:17 group: [no other questions] 16:59:22 Topic: Meeting close. 16:59:57 Nigel: We have a meeting scheduled for 23rd December, but I cannot make it. 17:00:00 Gary: Same here. 17:00:08 Pierre: I think we can probably skip it. 17:00:16 .. The most important thing is to get the WR and HR started. 17:00:20 Nigel: Yes, which we can do offline. 17:00:24 Pierre: Exactly. 17:01:02 Atsushi: Before we finish, could someone approve PR #20 of IMSC-HRM spec? 17:01:22 Pierre: I've approved it 17:01:26 Nigel: Me too 17:01:28 Atsushi: Thank you 17:02:20 .. I made a mistake with one option, it should update on /TR shortly. 17:02:29 Pierre: The readme is out of date, and we have an explainer. 17:02:34 .. What about making the Explainer the Readme? 17:03:17 Nigel: I think maybe make a shorter README and point to the Explainer? 17:03:21 Pierre: Okay I'll do that. 17:06:48 Nigel: Thanks everyone, if we don't have a call in 2 weeks, have a good holiday period, and see you in January. 17:06:58 group: [warm wishes all around] 17:07:06 Nigel: [adjourns meeting] 17:07:11 rrsagent, make minutes 17:07:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:09:44 s/group:/\group:/g 17:09:50 rrsagent, make minutes 17:09:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:13:12 s|c/v/c|| 17:13:25 s/Correvt/Correct/ 17:18:16 rrsagent, make minutes 17:18:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:20:11 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:20:17 zakim, end meeting 17:20:17 As of this point the attendees have been Gary, Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Pierre, Nigel 17:20:19 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:20:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/09-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:20:22 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:20:26 Zakim has left #tt 17:20:44 rrsagent, excuse us 17:20:44 I see no action items